Ganesh Rayalu Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4152 Bom

                                          1                    WP No. 3721/2016

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                          
                           WRIT PETITION NO.3721 OF 2016 




                                                 
      Ganesh s/o Rayalu Pawar,
      Age: 35 Yrs., occu. Unemployed,
      R/o Sawargaon Tanda, Tq.Kinwat,
      District Nanded.                                  - PETITIONER




                                                
            VERSUS

      1)       The State of Maharashtra 
               Through its Secretary,




                                       
               Village Development & Water
               Conservation Department,


      2)
                             
               Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

               The Chief Executive Officer,
               Zilla Parishad, nanded,
                            
               District Nanded.

      3)       Deputy Chief Executive Officer,
               Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
               District Nanded.
      


      4)   Sub-Divisional Officer,
   



           Water Supply Department
           Sub-Division, Kinwat,
           District Nanded.                 -  RESPONDENTS
                                       
                               *****





      Mr. G.J.Karne, Advocate for Petitioner/s
      Mr. V.H.Dighe, AGP for State.
      Ms. Yogita M.Kshirsagar, Adv. For Resp.Nos. 2 to 4.
                              -----
                                   CORAM :    S.S.SHINDE &





                                              P.R.BORA,JJ.

DATE :

26 July,2016.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:- S.S.SHINDE,J.)

1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel

for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. With their able assistance,

perused the pleadings and grounds taken therein,

annexures thereto and reply filed by Respondent Nos.2

to 4.

2) Upon perusal of the pleadings set out in

para 7 of the petition, the petitioner has made a

categorical statement that in the years 2001, 2002

and 2003, the petitioner had approached Respondent

Nos.3 and 4 with applications for seeking employment

on compassionate ground, however, they have refused

to accept the said applications on the ground that

father of the petitioner was Daily Wager and was not

a permanent employee and, therefore, the prayer of

the petitioner for appointment on compassionate

ground cannot be considered.

3) Upon perusal of the reply filed by

Respondent Nos.2 and 3, there is no denial to the

assertions/contentions raised by the petitioner in

para 7 of the writ petition. Admittedly, the

services of father of the petitioner were regularized

in the year 2007 by the respondents and, therefore,

prior to it, the applications submitted by the

petitioner seeking compassionate appointment, could

not have been considered by the respondents and,

therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that

the petitioner's application was not within the

prescribed period of five years from the date of

death of petitioner's father, cannot be countenanced.

4)

Upon further considering the case in it

entirety, it appears that the petitioner has made

constant endeavour to file the applications from the

year 2001 onwards till 2009. As already observed,

there is no reply to the assertions of the

petitioner's contention that the petitioner went on

filing applications after applications from the year

2001 and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 refused to accept

the said applications on the ground that petitioner's

father was not working on regular basis when he died.

Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of

this case, in our opinion, ends of justice would be

met, in case the respondents are directed to consider

the claim of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate ground on merits, without raising the

ground of limitation. in that view of the matter,

the impugned communication dated 29th October, 2009

issued by Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,

Nanded, is quashed and set aside. The Chief

Executive Officer is directed to consider the

application/s of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate ground, on its own merits, keeping in

view the relevant procedure/Rules, as expeditiously

as possible and preferably within a period of eight

weeks from today and communicate the said decision ot

the petitioner.

5) We make it clear that we have not expressed

any opinion on merits of the contentions raised by

the petitioner for seeking appointment on

compassionate ground and we have considered only the

point of limitation in filing the applications by the

petitioner.

6) The Writ Petition stands disposed of on

above terms with no order as to costs.

                sd/-                     sd/-
            (P.R.BORA)               (S.S.SHINDE)
              JUDGE                     JUDGE
                                    
                                

      bdv/