1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3937 OF 2009 Sarlabai w/o Bhagwan Mali, Age 37 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Motha Maliwada, Nandurbar, Taluka and District Nandurbar .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 3. The Collector, Dhule, District Dhule 4. The Collector, Nandurbar, District Nandurbar 5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar ..RESPONDENTS Mr.C.V.Bhadane, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Additional Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 Mr.S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.5 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 28th April, 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A very piquant situation arises in the present case. The husband of the petitioner who was employed with the Public Works Division, Nandurbar died on 16.1.1994 while in service. The petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground which came to be turned down for the reason the services of the petitioner had not been regularised. Fortunately, for the petitioner the Government by its order dated 13.6.2001 regularised the services of various Class-IV employees by giving retrospective effect. The services of the husband of the petitioner also came to be regularised w.e.f. 1.8.1990. Normally, appointment order ought to have been issued in favour of the petitioner since no impediment or hurdle existed in the way of issuance of appointment order. The woes of the petitioner did not end there and despite the fact that the petitioner’s name appears at Serial No.1, in the wait list prepared by the Collector- respondent No.4, no appointment order came to be issued in favour of the petitioner as the Collector as well as the Zilla Parishad tried to pass the buck from one to the another. Ultimately, it transpires that the order of the compassionate 3 appointment would only be issued by the respondent No.4 – Collector. However, despite filing of this petition and despite issuance of notice to the respondents, the respondents have still not issued any appointment order. The petitioner claims to be nearing 37 years of age and would soon be attaining over age in the event no appointment order is issued in favour of the petitioner. 3. Since there is no legal impediment whatsoever in the way of the petitioner in issuance of appointment order on compassionate ground, we allow this petition and direct the respondent No.4 to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on a post commensurate with the qualifications of the petitioner. This be done within six months from today. 4. Rule made absolute on above terms with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/3937.09wp) 4