1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO: 527/2005 (REVIEW) IN W.P. NO. 2317/2004 (D) (Pramod Bhaskarrao Potey vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and another) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. .................................................................................................................................................................. CORAM: D.D. SINH A & B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATED: 22nd February, 2008. *** Heard Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.E. Moharir for Respondents. 2. The present Review Application is directed against the order dated 30.6.2005 passed by us, whereby Writ Petition No. 2317/2004 filed by the review petitioner, seeking employment on compassionate ground in the employment of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, came to be dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Correction Slip dated 28.1.2005 particularly sub-clause (2) thereof, reads thus : 2 “ The scheme shall also cover the cases of dependent of the employee working on work- charge or NMR ( daily rated): (i) who has completed five years as on 30.9.94 or thereafter and expired while in service.” ( The remaining part of clause (2) is not relevant). Learned counsel for review petitioner, therefore, contended that the father of the petitioner who was working as NMR and had completed five years was entitled to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment under the scheme. However, these facts were not properly placed before us at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition and, therefore, it is submitted that the conclusion arrived at by us in the impugned order may kindly be reviewed. 4. Shri Moharir, learned counsel for the Respondents has brought to our notice that the father of the petitioner who was given fresh appointment in clear and vacant post of Helper on regular basis with effect from 30.1.1987 and the father of the petitioner died on 17.6.1988. It is, therefore, contended that as per the 3 scheme, the petitioner would have been entitled to get the appointment on compassionate ground, provided the father of the petitioner would have completed 3 years service or more in the said post, apart from other contingencies. However, since the father of the petitioner died within one year from the date of his regular appointment on the post of Helper, the petitioner was not entitled to get an appointment on compassionate ground. 5. We have considered the contentions canvassed. Perused the impugned order passed. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel were considered by us and we have rightly concluded that since the father of the petitioner did not complete three years as Helper, which was a regular post held by the father of the petitioner, the benefit of the scheme cannot be extended to the petitioner. 6. It is no doubt true that the relevant paragraph referred to hereinabove of the Correction Slip contemplates that the scheme shall also cover the employees working on NMR, provided the person concerned completed five years as on 30.9.1994. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner was given fresh employment in the year 1987 as a Helper on regular post and had died on 1988 itself and, 4 therefore, in our view, the above referred clause is not attracted in the case of the petitioner. Consequently, the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel in this regard, is devoid of any substance. 7. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Review Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare