1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6853 OF 2009 Satyam s/o Premnath Bansode, R/o- Plot No.47, Eknathnagar, Jatwada Road, Behind Harsul Jail, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Research & Development, Garkheda, Aurangabad, 3) The Superintending Engineer & Director, Irrigation Research & Development, Pune-1. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.S.N. Pagare Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH JANUARY, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner had moved the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for direction against the Respondents seeking compassionate appointment on the assertion that his mother is suffering from chronic schizophrenia, on account of which she had to take premature retirement before attaining the age of 50 years. The Tribunal has noticed that as per Government Resolution dated 28th March, 2001 only the employee who is required to retire at premature stage due to cancer, paralysis or accident, his dependent can be considered for appointment on compassionate ground and no other category. The Tribunal in other words, has non suited the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner's mother was not covered by the Resolution dated 28th March, 2001. 3. Insofar as the finding of fact is concerned, 3 that is not in dispute. Significantly, the Petitioner has not bothered to challenge the Government Resolution dated 28th March, 2001 though argument of discrimination has been pressed into service. 4. Be that as it may, the learned A.G.P. has pointed out that even the policy underlying the Government Resolution dated 28th March, 2001 has been changed and the latest policy in terms of Government Resolution dated 22nd August, 2005, which is in force, supersedes all previous Resolutions issued by the authority on the point. As per the extant policy, the dependent of the employee would become entitle for being considered for the appointment on compassionate ground only if it is a case of death while in service. No other category is covered by the said policy. Even for this reason, we see no basis to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction in the facts situation of the present case. 4 5. Hence Writ Petition is dismissed. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/JAN10/wp6853.09