1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 51 OF 2010 Smt. Lalita w/o. Namdeo Kurhe, Age 45 years, Occ. Household, r/o. 11/2, ND/42/D/3, CIDCO, New Nanded, Nanded. .. petitioners Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondent. --- Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.P. More, AGP for the respondents. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 6TH JANUARY, 2010. ORAL ORDER :- 1] The present petitioner's husband, by name Namdeo Kurhe, was working as a Junior Clerk under the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, viz, the Superintending Engineer and Sub Divisional Officer. He expired on 20th March, 2000, leaving behind the present petitioner and 3 daughters. The petitioner moved an application seeking compassionate appointment. The application is said to be pending for last 9 years. During the pendency of the 2 said application, the rules granting compassionate appointment have undergone amendment. The rules that are framed in the year 2005 lay down that a person above the age of 40 years shall not be entitled to claim compassionate appointment on humanitarian grounds. 2] According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not responsible for the delay caused in consideration of her application. 3] The person to be appointed on compassionate ground need to satisfy the criteria on the date on which the candidate is to be appointed. Thus, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground as she is now aged 45 years. The petition is devoid of any merit. 4] The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the petitioner has intimated the respondents that if the petitioner is found to be not eligible for being appointed on the ground that she is over age, then her daughter, named Pallavi, be considered for appointment. Our attention is also invited to the communication made by the petitioner addressed to the respondent No.2, dated 13th May, 2008, whereunder, the present petitioner has requested consideration of the claim of her daughter, on compassionate ground. 5] The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the claim of the daughter of the petitioner would be barred by limitation. 3 6] We do not propose to consider the claim of the petitioner's daughter, on merit, for compassionate appointment. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents, in furtherance to the request made vide communication dated 13/5/2008 claiming compassionate appointment for the daughter Pallivi and in the event the petitioner approaches the respondent, the respondent shall take a decision in regard to to the petitioner's daughter - Pallavi, in accordance with law and in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Government Resolutions. 7] With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands dismissed. [N.D. DESHPANDE,J.] [A.P. DESHPANDE.J.] Grt/-