Aniket Vilas Suryawanshi vs State Of Maharashtra And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 8386 Bom

                                      1                          937wp9170.21



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     937 WRIT PETITION NO.9170 OF 2021

                  ANIKET VILAS SURYAWANSHI
                              VERSUS
              STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                  ...
         Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Patil Bipinchandra K.
     AGP for Respondent No. 1-State : Mrs. V.N.Patil (Jadhav)
 Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. V.C. Patil h/f Mr. Bondar
                            Uttam Bajirao
                                  ...

                               CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                       SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

DATE : 25.08.2022.

PER COURT : (PER - SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

1. The petitioner seeks compassionate appointment. His

application is rejected by the communication dated 30.10.2012, on

the ground that the petitioner's father was working on the post of

'Electrician- Vijtantri', which is paid through the self generated

funds/ income of the Zilla Parishad.

2. This issue is no more res-integra and is squarely covered

by the judgment and order dated 20.08.2022 passed by this Court in

Amol S/o Sahebrao Suryawanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and

Ors - Writ Petition No. 9119 of 2021.

3. The only objection of Mr. V.C. Patil, the learned counsel

2 937wp9170.21

appearing for the Zilla Parishad is that the case was rejected on

30.10,2012 and the petition is thus barred by delay and latches. Mr.

Patil Bipinchandra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner

urges before us that the petitioner was orally assured that as and

when the issue would be decided in similar petitions, his case would

be re-considered. We do not express any opinion on this and the

issue is left open.

4. We set aside the communication dated 30.10.2012. The

Zilla Parishad is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner on

its own merits and the same shall not be rejected only on the ground

that the petitioner's father was paid through the self generated

funds/income of the Zilla Parishad.

5. Appropriate decision be taken within a period of three

months from today.

6. The petition is disposed of. No costs.

     ( SANDEEP V. MARNE )                ( MANGESH S. PATIL )
           JUDGE                              JUDGE



mahajansb/