FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.895 OF 2010 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for the State. 2 Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner No.1, Gopinath Haribhau Baravkar was dismissed by respondent No.2 on 25th April, 2000. During his life time, he did not challenge the said order. He died on 27th May, 2006. As a consequence of that order, a communication was issued on 17th December, 2008. Taking clue from the said communication, the petitioners before us filed Original Application No.655 of 2009, which has been rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the relief claimed against the order of dismissal dated 25th April, 2000 is hopelessly barred by limitation. In so far as the challenge to communication dated 17th December, 2008 is concerned, the tribunal rightly observed that the application was not barred against the said order as such. However, unless the dismissal order was to be set aside, the prayer for grant of compassionate pension cannot be considered under the Rules. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have good case on merits. The tribunal should not have dismissed the Original Application on the ground of delay alone but, ought to have recorded finding even on merits. To buttress the submission, reliance is placed on the decision of our High Court in the case of Mandanlal Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary & Ors. (2003(12) LJSOFT 84 = 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 581. The grievance of the petitioners clearly overlooks the correct position noted by the tribunal. In that, the petitioners cannot succeed in absence of challenge to the order of dismissal. It is not in dispute that the petitioners’ predecessor through whom the petitioners are claiming relief, did not find it appropriate or necessary to challenge the order of dismissal passed on 25th April, 2000 during his life time. He died on 27th May, 2006. In other words, he suffered the said order. 3 In this backdrop, we cannot permit the petitioners, who are heirs of Gopinath Haribhau Baravkar, to challenge the order of dismissal dated 25th April, 2000, which attained finality during the life time of their predecessor. 4 On this principle, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Having said this, it is unnecessary to examine any other controversy raised in the Original Application or petition on merits. Petition is dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J) 11.02.2010. PLK/*