1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8935 OF 2007 Mr. Vishal Pandit Jagtap .. Petitioner V/s Pimpry chinchwada Municipal Corporation and another .. Respondents Mr. V. N. Tayade, for the petitioner Mr. N. v. Walawalkar i/b Mr. G.H.Keluskar for respondents 1 & 2 CORAM: V. C. DAGA, & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 5th March, 2009 P. C. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is seeking employment with the Corporation on the ground that his father was superannuated on 1.5.2006 as per provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The petitioner further submits that some of the sons of the employees, who were similarly circumstanced with his father, have been given appointment in the establishment of the Corporations. He, thus, submits that on the same circumstance, he will be entitled for the appointment. 3. On being noticed, the respondent corporation appeared and filed counter affidavit. In para 4 of the said affidavit, while denying the assertion made by the petitioner, the Corporation has justified their action stating as under: “I say that (1) Gangaram Banpatte, Health Assistant (2) Shyam Waghere, Health Assistant, (3) Laxman Londhe, 2 Health Assistant (4) Pralhad Dubale, Health Assistant (5) Gulab Kisan Landge, Health Assistant, wee allowed to/made to retire on Medical Ground, hence after their retirement, their legal heirs came to be appointed on the compassionate ground and Rajesh (Babaji) Kamble, (2) Dattu Jagtap and (3) Chandrakala Kamble, while working in the respondent Corporation on the post of Mukadam took voluntary retirement, therefore, after their retirement, their heirs came to be appointed as per Lad committee recommendations in the respondent corporation. I further submit that as per clause (e) of circular No. Sankirna-2292/1999/Pra.Kra.164/ Navi-6,dated 30.6.1994 even if the Safai Kamgar is promoted in Class IV (only) it will not affect the rule of heir- ship or the right of his heir to get the job as per the recommendations of the Lad committee. I further submit that the petitioner's father retired after attaining the prescribed age limit 58 years; as class III employee, therefore, Lad Committee Recommendations were not applicable to present case.” 4. Having seen the justification furnished by the Corporation, the submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted. We do not find any merit in the petition so as to entertain the same for consideration. Petitioner is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V. C. DAGA, J.) jpc/-