(1) wp6533-08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6533 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4699 OF 2009 IN W.P.6533 OF 2008 Alpesh Govind Patil PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. P.B. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for the respondent/State. Mr. P.R. Patil, advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. .... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 28th APRIL, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. The petitioner has sought appointment with the respondent No. 4 on compassionate grounds. His father was employed with the respondent No. 4 as a Peon. He expired on 12th August, 2000. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother submitted an application on 25th August, 2000 to the respondent No. 4, indicating that the petitioner's brother should be appointed on compassionate grounds on the death of his father. It appears that since no appointment order was given to the petitioner's brother, he filed Writ Petition No. (2) wp6533-08 405/2003. That petition was allowed by this Court by its order dated 28th July, 2003. This Court directed the respondent No. 4 to consider the claim of the petitioner's brother for appointment as and when a vacancy arose in the Class-III / IV befitting the petitioner's i.e. the present petitioner's brother's qualifications. 2. The petitioner's brother expired on 15th April, 2004 without being appointed by the respondent No. 4. The petitioner then submitted his own application on 25th August, 2007 for being appointed in place of his father. That application has been denied and hence, the present petition. 3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to the open category and he would be entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds instead of his father. It is also contended that the petitioner's name is maintained on the waiting list at serial No. 5 and, therefore, he should be given immediate appointment with the respondent No. 4. (3) wp6533-08 4. In the case of "Local Administration Department and another vs. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu" in Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2006, the Supreme Court, while considering a Scheme of `compassionate appointments', has observed thus : "8. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors such as the number of already pending claims under the scheme and availability of vacancies etc. normally the appointment may come after several months or even after two to three years. It is not our intent, nor it is possible to lay down a rigid time limit within which appointment on compassionate grounds must be made but what needs to be emphasised is that such an appointment must have some bearing on the object of the scheme." 5. In our opinion, the well settled position of law is that an Application for appointment on compassionate grounds should ordinarily be made immediately after the death of the incumbent. In the present case, the petitioner's father expired on 12th August, 2000 and it was only after seven years that the petitioner approached the respondent no.4 for being appointed on compassionate grounds. It is true (4) wp6533-08 that earlier, his brother's case was being considered by respondent no.4. However, his brother expired on 15th April, 2004 prior to achieving his goal of being appointed on compassionate grounds. The petitioner, in the present case, approached the authorities three and an half years after his brother's death. In these circumstances, we see no reason to grant any relief to the petitioner. There are no compelling circumstances mentioned in the pleadings which prevented the petitioner from applying for the post soon after his brother's death. 6. However, since the petitioner's name is on the waiting list at serial no.5 admittedly, his case shall be considered in accordance with law. The Petition is dismissed. 7. In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition, Civil Application no.4699 of 2009 does not survive and hence stands dismissed. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] NPJ/wp6533-08