1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 236 OF 2009 Aakash Bharatsing Chhanwal .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. .. Respondents Mrs. Vaishali D. Patil (Jadhav), Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. P. More, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. The Respondents No. 2 to 4 served. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2010. ORAL ORDER [ PER A. P. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 1. The present petitioner's father was working as Chokidar with the respondent No. 3. While being in service, he was suffering from Tuber Culosis and hence was constrained to opt out of service (retirement on health ground) on 06th August, 2003. The petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment. The request of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents on the ground that he does not satisfy the eligibility criteria laid down under 2 Government Resolution dated 22nd August, 2005. 2. It is relevant to note that prior to the bringing into force of Government Resolution dated 22nd August, 2005, the subject of compassionate appointment was regulated by various earlier Government Resolutions including one dated 26.10.1994. Under the Government Resolution of 1994 the dependents of a person who had to retire on the ground of ill health, were also held eligible for appointments to the post in C and D cadre. However, under the Government Resolution of 2005 only those employees who expired while in service, their dependents are entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. Besides the said eligibility criteria, under the 1994 Government Resolution a dependent could make an application for compassionate appointment within a period of five years from the date of death or incapacity of the Government Servant concerned, whereas in 2005 Government Resolution the time to make an application is brought down to one year. In view of the provisions contained in 2005 Government Resolution petitioner's representation came to be rejected on both the grounds : (1) he did not make application within stipulated period of one year, (2) that the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. 3. So far as the second ground is concerned, it deals with eligibility. Suffice it to state, for the first time the petitioner moved an application claiming compassionate appointment on 27th September, 2006 i. e. after the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2005 came into force. Hence the petitioner need to satisfy the 3 eligibility criteria laid down under the said Government Resolution. As under 2005 Government Resolution no dependent of a Government Servant can claim compassionate appointment, if the Government Servant has retired on the ground of ill health, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has no legal right to claim compassionate appointment under Government Resolution dated 22nd August, 2005. In the result, petition is dismissed being devoid of substance. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Jan. 2010