IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7793 OF 2009 Vinodkumar Khiru Chavan ...Petitioner. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Ashish Gaikwad, adv. For the Petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargokar, AGP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 9th December , 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. Heard forthwith. 2 Petitioner’s father was working in the office of the respondent no.2 in Group D post post since 1989 to 2000. Petitioner’s father expired on 30.7.2000 while in the service. Mother thereafter made an application on 28.3.2001 that she should be appointed on compassionate basis. Mother of the petitioner thereafter supported that application with all the necessary documents and consequently, according to the petitioner, that proposal was forwarded by the respondent no.2 on 23.11.2001 to the respondent no.4. Thereafter some other correspondence indicating that the mother’s name was to be enrolled in the list maintained for appointment on compassionate basis. - 2- Thereafter, mother on 13.10.2008 made application requesting respondent that in stead of her name, her son i.e., the petitioner be considered for the appointment on the compassionate ground. However, on 31.7.2009 it is the case of the petitioner that the mother was informed by the respondent no.2 that her name was deleted from waiting seniority list of the appointment to be made on the compassionate ground for Class/Group D on the ground that she has completed 40 years age and as such, her name cannot be considered. Petitioner’s grievance is that G.R. dated 23.4.2008 could not have been considered with retrospective effect as the application was much earlier at the point of time. Other grievance is that mother had asked the respondent to substitute the name of the petitioner. That plea could not be rejected without giving notice to the petitioner. Respondents while taking decision also take into consideration contention raised by the petitioner that G.R. is prospective and can not be applied with retrospective effect. Hence, mother’s application could not have been rejected. 3 In the light of that, present petition can be disposed off by issuing following order: i Respondents are directed to consider request made by the petitioner’s mother for considering the petitioner in employment by way - 3- of compassionate appointment in stead of the mother and thereafter, pass appropriate order according to the law. Entire exercise of taking decision to be completed within 12 weeks of the petitioner serving copy of this order on the respondents. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)