WP No. 3802/2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3802 OF 2009 Sunita w/o. Prabhakar Netke, R/o. Sidharth Nagar, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Ajit S. Zarekar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for respondent No. 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 19th September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner claims to be wife of the deceased husband Prabhakar Vasant Netke, who was initially discharging the duties as daily wager with the respondent No. 3 - Municipal Council (Now Corporation). By Government Resolution dated 31.10.2002 the State Government absorbed 305 daily wagers on certain conditions. One of the essential condition was that after retirement of such employee or for any other reason if the post WP No. 3802/2009 2 held by such employee falls vacant, such post would get lapsed automatically and in future Municipal Council/Corporation would not be entitled to fill in the said post. 3. Learned counsel Shri. Zarekar for the petitioner submits that the application filed for appointment on compassionate ground by the petitioner has not been considered. The counsel referred to the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 30th January 2002 wherein it was directed to implement the Government Resolution dated 31.10.2002. The counsel submits that there are some vacant class IV posts with the respondent Municipal Corporation, therefore, the petitioner's case be considered. 4. Learned counsel Shri. Bedre appearing for respondent - Municipal Corporation submits that the Government Resolution is very clear on the issue of availability of posts after retirement of 305 employees. After retirement of the employees the posts lapsed by virtue of Government Resolution. The petitioner is not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground in the light of policy adopted by the State. The counsel, on instructions, submits that the respondent Municipal Corporation has not appointed any relative of the employee out of 305 employees on compassionate ground. WP No. 3802/2009 3 5. We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the Government Resolution and other relative material placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government Resolution dated 31.10.2002 is unreasonable. We do not find any substance in the submissions advanced. Anyhow the Government Resolution is issued on 31.10.2002 and acted upon by the parties and after gap of nearabout 9 years such a plea is raised by the parties, which cannot be accepted. In other words acceptance of submissions of learned counsel would amount to creating posts which lapsed. The petitioner cannot insist as of right that her claim should be considered on compassionate ground. 6. In the facts of the case, no interference is warranted in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution. Petition is rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/