(1) WP. 5412.2009+4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5412 OF 2009 Kiran S/o Bansi Raut PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5543 OF 2009 Shaikh Mukhtar Ibrahim PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5544 OF 2009 Suresh S/o Vishwanath Pande PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5803 OF 2009 Mahendra S/o Murlidhar Shirsat PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS AND WRIT PETITION NO.8628 OF 2009 Shaikh Abdul Wajid Abdul Rashid PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS (2) WP. 5412.2009+4 ..... Mr. K.M. Nagarkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. N.D. Sonawane, Advocate h/f. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent no.3 AGPs for the Respondent-State Mr. K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. Mr. R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. Mr. P.P. More, A.G.P. Mr. K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 02ND MAY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. In all these matters, the petitioners seek appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioners claim that their respective fathers were employed with the respondent no.3 in Class-IV posts and retired on attaining the age of superannuation or voluntarily because of ill health. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to be appointed in place of their respective fathers on a compassionate basis. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners is unable to show us any rule or regulation or Government resolution or provisions of (3) WP. 5412.2009+4 law, which entitles such persons to be appointed on a compassionate basis. The only provision, which we have found is with respect to the wards of those employees, who were working as Safai Kamgars. Their wards are entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds under the report of the Lad Committee as mentioned in the letter dated 6.1.2009 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Nagar Parishad to the Collector. The Collector by his order dated 2.2.2009 has rejected the proposal sent by the Nagar Parishad for appointing 14 persons who were the children of employees who had retired. This was because none of the erstwhile employees were Safai Kamgars. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has argued that several other persons have been appointed on compassionate grounds although their respective fathers retired or sought voluntary retirement. In our opinion, merely because some persons have been appointed, it would not give a right to the petitioners to be appointed to such posts when admittedly they do not fall within the exception carved out by the Lad Committee. Moreover, the (4) WP. 5412.2009+4 learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has been unable to show us any provision of law, under which such appointments can be made. Apart from this, the fathers of the petitioners retired in years varying between 2000 and 2007. Therefore, the question of considering the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds after the lapse of such a long period of time does not arise. In fact, this is the view taken by the Supreme Court in various judgments as compassionate appointments are to be made to meet the immediate crisis faced by the family of an employee who dies in harness. These circumstances are not present in the cases before us. The Petitions are rejected. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp