1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8473 OF 2009 Sandip s/o Bhaskarrao Pande, Age-32 years, Occu: At present Nil (was serving as Clerk-cum- Typist in the office of Respondent No.2), R/o-A-2, Flat No.1, Plot No.158, Gut No.190, Mayur Park, Aurangabad, Taluka and District: Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, M.S., Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Deputy Director, Vocational Education and Training, Regional Office, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. Rajendra Deshmukh Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondents. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 22ND JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.) : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2. The Petitioner contends that his father was in service as Group Instructor in I.T.I. Nanded, who died while in service on 3rd October, 2000. The Petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment on 30th October, 2000. It is further contended that the Petitioner was appointed on 14th May, 2008 as clerk-cum-typist for 180 days. The Petitioner was again continued in that capacity by giving appointments for 180 days from time to time. By order dated 6th November, 2009, the Petitioner's services were 3 discontinued on the ground that the Petitioner's father served in Group B category. Reliance was placed on the Government Resolution dated 28th March, 2001. 3. The Petitioner approached the Tribunal against the discontinuation of his services by filing Original Application on 9th November, 2009. The learned counsel submits that the matter was taken up for hearing on 10th October, 2009. The Tribunal observed in Para 2 of the order that, by consent of learned P.O. the matter was taken up for final hearing and disposal. 4. Shri. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that appropriate opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided to the Petitioner. The matter was decided finally on the first date of hearing, which has caused prejudice to the case of the Petitioner. The counsel raised mainly two issues, i.e. firstly, the Government Resolution dated 28th March, 2001 could not have 4 been applied retrospectively by considering the services of the Petitioner's father in Group-B. Secondly, the Petitioner ought to have been regularly appointed on compassionate basis in place of his father who died while in service. 5. Shri. Dighe, learned A.G.P. filed affidavit in reply on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The A.G.P. submits that Government Resolution dated 28th March, 2001 entitles the legal representatives of the persons working in Group C and D only to claim appointment on compassionate ground, in accordance with law. As Petitioner's father was serving in Group B, the Petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment. The A.G.P. submits that the Petitioner was heard by the Tribunal and by a reasoned order the Tribunal dealt with the issues raised by the Petitioner. The A.G.P. further submits that the Petitioner does not have vested right for claiming compassionate appointment. Even the Petitioner does not have legal right to claim 5 the post on compassionate ground. In entirety the individual case has to be assessed in the light of the principles settled by the Apex Court. The Petitioner was given ad-hoc appointment for 180 days for few times, on the basis of which, he is not entitled to claim regular appointment. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the Judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: P.V. Hardas and A.V. Potdar, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.4903 of 2007 dated 3rd March, 2009. We have perused the same. We have perused the impugned order and other documents placed on record. 7. We find in fairness, that the Tribunal would consider again the issue of application of Government Resolution dated 28th March, 2001 in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4903 of 2007. Prima facie we find that in the facts of the case, the Petitioner's father who died in the year 6 2000, the application of Government Resolution dated 28th March, 2001 may not be applicable for the purposes of putting the services of Petitioner's father in Group B. Once this question is answered, the Tribunal will have to take up another issue, whether the Petitioner is required to be appointed on regular basis on compassionate ground. 8. Needless to mention that the issue, in what circumstances the Petitioner has to be appointed on compassionate ground, has been settled by catena of decisions by the Apex Court. (Ref:- 1) Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Anil Badyakar (2009) 13 S.C.C. 112, 2) State of Chhattisgarh vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar (2009) 13 S.C.C. 600 3) Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vs. Laxmi Devi (2009) 7 S.C.C. 205 4) Santosh Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. (2009) 6 S.C.C. 481). In the light of that principles, the case of the Petitioner has to be considered. We find that the 7 Tribunal has touched that issue in Paragraph 7 of the impugned order. But the Tribunal could have reached final conclusion in respect of the issue as to whether the Petitioner could be appointed regularly on compassionate ground. We therefore find that in fairness to the parties, these issues are required to be considered afresh by the Tribunal on its own merits. We are of the considered opinion that the matter is required to be remanded back to the Tribunal. 9. The Order dated 10th November, 2009 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1095 of 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall hear the parties and dispose of the Original Application in the light of the observations made by us as above. All issues are kept open. We have not expressed any opinion on the issue whether the Petitioner is entitled to be appointed on regular basis on compassionate ground. 8 10. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JUNE10/wp8473.09