Bombay High Court
WP/5141/2024 of MINAKSHI W/O SANJAY NERKAR Vs THE CHIEF OFFICER, NAGAR PARISHAD, KARANJA AND ANOTHER on 8 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
10-WP-5141-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5141 OF 2024 (Minakshi w/o Sanjay Nerkar Vs. The Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Karanja & Anr.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Ms. Shiba Thakur, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. M.I. Dhatrak, Counsel for respondent no.1. .....
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
OCTOBER 8, 2026 The prayer is to direct respondent no.1 to register the name of the petitioner as nominee in the service book of respondent no.2.
The Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 115 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short “Rules of 1982”). It provides for the obligation on part of a Government Servant to make nomination. The provision under the Rule indicates that a Government Servant may nominate more than one person as well. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 115 of the Rules of 1982 provides that a Government Servant, at any time, cancel nomination by sending a notice in writing to the Head of Office and may send a fresh nomination.
That being so, the insistence of the petitioner to direct respondent no.1 to register the name of the petitioner as nominee runs contrary to the Rule, which the petitioner intends to rely on. 2026:BHC-NAG:13455-DB
10-WP-5141-2024
We may note here that the petitioner is the second wife of respondent no.2, who has retired on superannuation.
Accordingly, when we inquired with the petitioner’s Counsel as to whose nomination has been sent by respondent no.2, she submits that the said information is not available.
Thus, it is not known to the petitioner herself whether her name has been nominated or not. In any case, if a Government Servant is empowered to cancel a nomination, the petitioner’s name, even if is sent by respondent no.2, he is at liberty to cancel the said nomination, and if he has not sent the petitioner’s name as his nominee, it is his choice in terms of Rule 115 of the Rules of 1982.
There is, thus, no merit in the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Copy of order shall be served upon respondent no.2. (NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Sumit Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/10/2026 16:49:40