1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3113 OF 2009 Nazeema Begum D/o Rasheed Khan - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.K.T.Shirrukar, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.V.H.Dighe,AGP for State. ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 4th November, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an adopted daughter by her grand-mother Sugrabi Ramjankhan. The grand-mother of the petitioner was in employment of respondent no.2 as Ward Attendant, a Class-IV employee, she died on 1.9.1992. 2 The counsel submits that the petitioner was adopted prior to 1991-1992 and at the material time she was 13 years of age. The petitioner’s father, it is an admitted position, too was in service of Respondent no.2, who stood retired after attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. 60 years, on 30th September, 2007. 3) The petitioner’s grievance is that her application/representation made for considering her claim and appointing her on compassionate ground in place of her grand-mother is required to be considered and accepted. 4) The Respondents filed affidavit in reply through Dr. Vaishali Vinayakrao Dakle, Medical Officer, Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad. In paragraphs 3 and 4, the deponent states as under - “3. I say that the petitioner – Nazeema Begum Rasheed Khan has filed this petition seeking directions to consider her claim for compassionate appointment in Class-III or Class-IV post, pursuant to the retirement of 3 her grand mother Sugrabi who was serving as Class IV employee with the respondents. I say that Sugrabi Ramzan Khan, the petitioner’s grand mother was serving with the respondent as Class IV employee and had retired on 21.7.1992 on medical ground as she was certified by the Medical Board to be unfit for further service. The petitioner claims that, she is the only legal heir of Sugraboi and as such she had applied on 2.9.1992 to the respondent no.2 for an appointment on compassionate ground in place of Sugrabi. She further claims that, she had given a reminder in the year 2001 but her claim was not considered by the respondents. It may, however, be mentioned here that the application referred to by the petitioner at page no. 26 and 27 to the petition were never received in the office of respondent no.2 nor is there a proper endorsement upon the copies annexed by the petitioner to the present petition. It is, therefore, denied that any such applications were received in the office of respondent no.2. 4. I say that, the petitioner claims compassionate appointment upon the retirement of her grand mother Sugrabi who admittedly retired on 21.7.1992.” 5) Learned A.G.P. submits that for the very relief, as prayed in the instant petition, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition No.6116/2008 in this Court, which came 4 to be withdrawn by the petitioner on 14.11.2008. According to the petitioner, the said petition was withdrawn with liberty. 6) There are further reasons assigned in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents, based on which, it is contended by the learned AGP that the petitioner is not entitled to seek appointment on compassionate ground. 7) The principles as regards considering the claim for appointment on compassionate ground are well settled. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as of right. Each case needs to be scrutinized and considered on its own merits. 8) In the facts of the present case, we do not find that the respondents have committed serious error or illegality in denying appointment on compassionate ground to the 5 petitioner. In view of the reply filed by the respondents and the attending facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for seeking directions to the respondents for appointing her or considering her claim for appointment on compassionate ground. In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, we are not inclined to issue such directions. The petition stands dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/wp3113.09