1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5678 OF 2006 SMT. ALKA SUNIL MORE .. PETITIONER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Ashok T. Gade for petitioner Mr. R.A. Rodrigues with Kiran Kandpile forR-2 & 3. Smt. S. S. Bhende, AGP for R-1 CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT. R. S. DALVI,JJ. DATE: 26/2/2008 P.C. . The petitioner is the widow of one Sunil More, who was working as Sepoy with the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The petitioner’s husband died while in service on 1/11/2000 leaving behind the petitioner and three children. 2 2. On 12/3/01 the petitioner submitted an application in prescribed proforma for employment on compassionate ground. On 20/11/01, the 2nd respondent sent a letter to the petitioner. By this letter the petitioner was informed that her claim will be considered as and when quota for appointment on compassionate ground is released by the Cadre Controlling Authority, Pune-II. Similar communication dated 24/6/02 was received by the petitioner. According to the petitioner the petitioner has made several, oral as well as written applications, however, the respondents have not responded favourably though she has made out a case for appointment. Hence she has filed this petition praying that respondents be directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner on compassionate ground on any vacant post. 3. This petition was heard by us on 4/2/08. We had directed learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents to tell us as to when quota for the year 2003-04 was released. The petition was then adjourned. Accordingly today certain xerox copies of record is produced before us. Copies of the same are also handed over to learned counsel for 3 the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is the case of the respondents that the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground is available to a person for the period of three years from the death of close relative working with the 2nd respondent. He submitted that the petitioner’s husband expired on 1/11/2000, therefore, as per this policy of the respondents the petitioner was entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds upto 1st November, 2003. 5. Learned counsel pointed out that one Kamble expired on 18/2/02. His wife was appointed on compassionate grounds in April, 2006. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner’s husband having expired prior to the husband of Smt. Kamble, the respondents ought to have considered the petitioner’s case for employment before Smt. Kamble. He submitted that the record produced by the respondents in this court does not indicate as to when in fact quota was released for the period 1/11/00 to 1/11/03. He pointed out that in fact during this period quota was released twice i.e. once in June 2002 and again in April, 2003. 4 Learned counsel submitted that the list which is produced by the respondents does not indicate when the appointments of persons whose names are mentioned therein were made. 6. It is not possible for us to wade through the files of the respondents to find out when the quota was released and whether policy of the respondents is correctly followed. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a widow, who has children to lookafter and that she is seeking employment on compassionate grounds, we feel that some senior officer of the respondents, who has not handled the petitioner’s case should consider the petitioner’s case independently soas to rule out the possibility of some injustice having been caused to her. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will file a detailed representation stating the petitioner’s case within a period of four weeks from today to the Commissioner Central Excise, Pune-I, Pune. If such a representation is made the Commissioner Central Excise, Pune-I will consider it expeditiously and communicate the result thereof to the petitioner. We expect him to take an independent decision within a period of six weeks 5 from the date of receipt of the representation. 8. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE