1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4957 OF 1995 Sudhakar S/o Marotrao Sawant Age : 28 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o : Juna Bajar, Bhandari Galli, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Zilla Parishad, Beed, through its Chief Executive Officer, Tq. & Dist. Beed. .... RESPONDENTS [ Petition dismissed against respondent no. 1 vide Court’s Order dated 20/4/1998 for non payment of Bhatta ]. Mr. R.K.Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 15/06/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER - B.R.GAVAI, J. ] 1. The petition has been filed by the present petitioner claiming for compassionate appointment. The father of the petitioner was working in the Education Department of respondent no. 2 – Zilla Parishad. The father of the petitioner expired on 8/12/1976. According to the petitioner, in the year 1977 his brother had applied for appointment on compassionate ground. 2 Since it was not granted, his brother also committed suicide. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 26/4/1985. Since the compassionate appointment is not granted, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. By now it is settled law that the compassionate appointment is required to be granted so as to enable the family members of the deceased employee to over-come difficulties that they may face at the time of death of deceased employee. Admittedly, the death of the father of the petitioner is in the year 1976. The first application of the petitioner is after 10 years i.e. in the year 1985. The petition is filed 10 years thereafter i.e. in the year 1995. 15 years period has further lapsed there from. It is thus clear that almost 34 years period has lapsed from the date on which the father of the petitioner has died. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner is facing some hardship even today, which he was suffering at the time of death of his father. In any case, the petitioner is about 45 years age now and in all probabilities reached the upper age limit provided under the prescribed rules. 3. In that view of the matter, no relief could be granted in favour of the petitioner. The present Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 4957.95 3