1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5653 OF 2010 Madhav s/o Shardchandra Deshpande, Age 39 years, Occu.Nil,, R/o Vajirabad, Nanded ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through G.P. High Court, Aurangabad Bench 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 3. The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 4. The Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle, Nanded ..RESPONDENTS Mr.A.S.Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 30th July 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this writ petition may briefly be stated thus. Father of the petitioner, who was in employment expired while in service on 30.11.1996. The petitioner immediately submitted an application on 29.1.1997 seeking the appointment on compassionate ground on account of the demise of his father. The petitioner was made to wait for more than eleven years and ultimately, on 28.7.2008, the petitioner came to be appointed on the post of Senior Clerk on compassionate ground. It appears that a policy decision was taken by the government by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 28.3.2001 by which it was decided that appointment on compassionate ground would be made to the wards of group “C” and group “D”. This Government Resolution, therefore, modified the earlier Government Resolutions which were in existence when father of the petitioner died. The petitioner had been appointed on a post of Senior Clerk and, therefore, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 11.3.2010 as the appointment of the petitioner, according to the respondents, was contrary to the modified scheme relating to appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner approached the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.287 of 2010 which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground 3 that Tribunal had taken a view in Original Application No.1095 of 2009 that the Government policy existing on the date of the actual appointment would be required to be taken into consideration. 3. Our attention has been invited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No.4903 of 2007, Priyadarshan Pradeep Phaltane Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. dated 3.3.2009. The Division Bench in no uncertain terms had held that the Government Resolution dated 28.3.2001 could not have made retrospectively operative to the case of the petitioner. The Division Bench further observed that the wording of the Government Resolution make it clear that it is prospective in its application and would come into effect from 28.3.2001. In that light of the matter, therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal dismissing the Original Application is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. The termination order of the petitioner is also quashed and set aside and the petitioner shall be reinstated with continuity in service. 4 5. Mr.Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that the petitioner would not claim the arrears of back wages. In that light of the matter, Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/5653.10wp)