1 S.A. 473 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2010 Lalita Natthu Tarage Appellant V E R S U S Dhule Municipal Corporation and another Respondents Mr. S.R. Patil, Advocate for appellant Mr. S.P. Shah, Advocate for respondent No. 1 CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED : 16th March, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the respondent / Corporation for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to be absorbed in the services of defendant No. 1 in place of her deceased husband. The trial court decreed the suit. Defendant / corporation preferred an appeal. The appellate Court allowed the appeal, being aggrieved by the same the plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal. 2. Shri Patil, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is the legal right of the appellant to get appointment on compassionate 2 S.A. 473 of 2010 ground and to be abosrobed in service. The defendant No. 1, fraudulently appointed defendant No. 2, on compassionate ground in place of plaintiff on forged and fabricated documents. Learned counsel further contended that it was erroneous on the part of the learned appellate court to hold that Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The plaintiff is exercising common law right and the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. 3. Per contra Shri Shah, learned counsel for the respondent / Corporation submits that the State was not made party. Unless the State sanctions the post, no appointment can be given. The appointment was given to the defendant No. 2, on the basis of no objection given by the plaintiff. The learned counsel further contends that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as of right. 4. With the assistance of learned Counsel, I have gone through the judgment. No doubt the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as of right. But if the Government Resolutions are passed to that effect, the public authorities are bound to give effect to the same. However, in the present case, there is disputed question as to whether the plaintiff had or had not given the no objection in 3 S.A. 473 of 2010 favour of defendant No. 2, and the plaintiff had not added State as a party. The Civil Court, no doubt has jurisdiction to try the dispute, in such matter. But at the same time the proper parties are to be added. Even the trial Court passed declaratory relief and had not given any direction, and the same is not challenged by the present plaintiff. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has crossed the age for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. In the light of the same, Second Appeal being sans substantial questions of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ) SDM*473.10SA/160311