(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1009 OF 2010 Ulhas Rameshrao Pathrikar, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Vaishnav, Sai Road, Pathri, Taluka : Pathri, District : Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director of Municipal Administration, Government Transport Service Building, 3rd Floor, Sir Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai. 3. The Collector, Parbhani. 4. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Pathri, Taluka : Pathri, District : Parbhani. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Ms. R.P. Gour, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. A.S. Gandhi, Advocate, for respondent no.4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 7TH OCTOBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner claims appointment on compassionate ground. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, that the petitioner's father was suffering from heart ailment in 2001 and, as such, he applied for voluntary retirement on medical ground in January 2001 itself. It is submitted that, however, on account of delay on the part of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, the voluntary retirement could not be granted immediately and it was granted on 31st March 2001. It is submitted that the policy of the Government, in regard to appointment on compassionate ground, has been changed vide Government Resolution dated 28th March 2001 i.e. one day prior to the date on which the (3) petitioner's father stood retired voluntarily. 3. Ms. R.P. Gour, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner would not be governed by the policy of the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 28th March 2001, but the petitioner's case would be governed by the policy which was in vogue on the date on which petitioner's father applied for voluntary retirement. 4. The legal position is very clear. In so far as grant of compassionate appointment is concerned, the same would be governed by the policy as was prevailing, either on the date of death of an employee or on the date of retirement on the ground that the employee was not in a position to continue on medical grounds. Undisputedly, the petitioner's father has retired voluntarily on 31st March 2001 and the policy has been changed on 28th March 2001, which specifies that only legal representatives of such persons, who are permanently disabled to continue prior to completion of their 50 years of age, due to cancer, paralysis or accident, would be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Apart from this, there is another aspect of the matter. The Apex Court, in catena of judgments, has held that the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is to enable a (4) family to meet the hardships that the family has to face on account of sudden death or sudden serious ailment of an earning member of family. It has further been held that such hardship does not perpetuate for innumerable number of years. In the present case, the petitioner's father has retired voluntarily on 31st March 2001 and, as such, it cannot be said that the hardship, that the family was facing in the year 2001, also continued till the year 2010. 6. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( A.A. SAYED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1009