Bebi Uttam Dhavse And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1584 Bom

                                        1             911-wp 628-2022.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 628 OF 2022

 Bebi Uttam Dhavse
 and another                                                       .. Petitioners

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra and others                               .. Respondents

 Mr. R. R. Bangar, Advocate h/f Mr. Irfan D. Maniyar, Advocate for the
 Petitioners.
 Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for Respondent No. 1.
 Mr. S. R. Yadav-Lonikar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

                                 CORAM :    S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                            S. G. DIGE, JJ.

DATED : 16th FEBRUARY 2022.

PER COURT:-

. The husband of the petitioner No. 1 was in employment of

respondent No. 2. He died while in service on 17.11.2008. On

16.07.2009 the petitioner had filed application for appointment on

compassionate ground. On or about 24.10.2009 the petitioner No. 1

attained 45 years of age. As per the Government Resolution at the

relevant time dated 28.08.2005 the application for compassionate

appointment could be considered of an applicant till he attains 40 years

of age. On the death of husband of the petitioner No. 1, the petitioner

No. 1 had already crossed 40 years of age and she had crossed 45 years

1 of 3

2 911-wp 628-2022.odt

of age on 24.10.2009.

2. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

that the petitioner No. 2 i.e. son of the deceased could have been

considered for appointment and he filed application for appointment

on compassionate ground on 08.12.2021.

3. It needs to be considered that the petitioner No. 2 is more than

25 years of age according to the cause title. He could have applied

immediately on attaining age of majority. He did not do so. The

reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court

dated 11.03.2020 in Writ Petition No. 6267 of 2018 to contend that the

name of other legal heir can be substituted.

4. In the present case, the petitioner No. 1 was not eligible to apply

seeking appointment on compassionate ground due to age and

petitioner No. 2 did not apply for more than seven years upon attaining

the age of majority. The petitioner No. 2 is claiming appointment on

compassionate ground after almost 13 years of the death of his father.

5. In the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ

Petition No. 6267 of 2018 dated 11.03.2020 (supra) the person died on

06.09.2005. At that time the petitioner therein was only six years of

age. The mother had applied. Objection was raised in the year 2013.

                                                                              2 of 3





                                     3               911-wp 628-2022.odt

The mother of the petitioner gave up her claim and the petitioner on

attaining age of majority immediately applied seeking appointment on

compassionate ground. In that context, the Division Bench of this

Court had delivered the said judgment. In the present case, the

petitioner No. 2 did not apply for more than seven years upon attaining

age of majority seeking appointment on compassionate ground.

6. In the light of the above, no case for interference is made out.

Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

 ( S. G. DIGE )                                ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
    JUDGE                                                JUDGE




 P.S.B.




                                                                              3 of 3