Mukund Appasaheb Salunke vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8387 Bom

                                    1                          938wp9178.21



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     938 WRIT PETITION NO.9178 OF 2021

                 MUKUND APPASAHEB SALUNKE
                              VERSUS
           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                  ...
         Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Patil Bipinchandra K.
        AGP for Respondent No. 1-State : Mr.K.N.Lokhande
 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 turned down on the ground that the petitioner's father

was working on the post of 'Valve Man' which post was being

operated 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 that Mr. V.C. Patil, the learned

counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishad is that the petitioner's

2 938wp9178.21

mother had first applied for compassionate appointment, which was

turned down vide the communication dated 16.07.2015 and that

after attaining the majority, the petitioner could not have applied for

the compassionate appointment. He also submits that the death of

the employee has taken place in the year 2010, therefore, this Court

should be loath in passing any orders in the present petition.

4. We do not wish to express any opinion on the objection

raised by Mr. V.C. Patil and the issues are kept open. However, since

the ground of rejection in the communications dated 16.07.2015

cannot survive on account of decision in Amol S/o Sahebrao

Suryawanshi (supra), we set aside the communication and direct the

respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment. Same shall not be rejected only on the

ground that the petitioner's father was paid from self generated

funds/income of Zilla Parishad.

5. The decision be taken within a period of three months

from today.

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


mahajansb/