(1) WP8028-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8028 OF 2009 Vijay s/o Dashrath Chakare PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... None present for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. N.L. Jadhav, advocate for the respondent No. 3. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 9th JUNE, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. The petition has been preferred by a person who claims an appointment with the Zilla Parishad on compassionate grounds. The petitioner's father was employed with the Zilla Parishad. He expired while working as a Head Master of the Zilla Parishad School on 12th July, 1978. The petitioner was a minor at that point of time, being born in 1977. His mother - (2) WP8028-09 Anusayabai preferred an application to the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad and requested that she be appointed on compassionate grounds in place of her husband. That application was rejected by the Zilla Parishad. Thereafter, the petitioner's brother - Suresh applied to be appointed on compassionate grounds. That application, according to the petitioner, is still pending. However, his brother has secured employment in a private Firm and, therefore, is not interested in a job with the Zilla Parishad. 2. The petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 1st October, 1999, two years after attaining majority. By the order dated 12th April, 2000, the respondent No. 3 - the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad informed the petitioner that since his brother had applied for the post, the petitioner's application could not be considered. It was, therefore rejected. Another application was submitted by the Petitioner on 17th March, 2009 staking his claim for appointment as his brother did not wish to pursue his claim. (3) WP8028-09 This application was rejected by the Zilla Parishad on 24th April, 2009. The respondent No. 3 indicated that since the petitioner had applied for the job 30 years after the death of his father, it was barred and, therefore, his request was turned down. 3. We are not inclined to entertain the present matter. It is now well settled that the appointments on compassionate grounds are to be made in order to assist the family to tide over the financial crisis and economic stringency that it may face after the death of the bread-winner. The purpose of making such appointments is to aid the family when immediate financial relief is required for the family. It is trite that such applications cannot be considered several years after the death of the employee concerned. 4. In our view, the application made by the petitioner in 1999, soon after he became a major, had rightly been rejected because his brother had sought employment on compassionate grounds. It was only when his brother secured a job in a private Concern, (4) WP8028-09 that the petitioner woke up again in 2009 to request the respondent No. 3 to employ him on compassionate grounds. In our opinion, no case for invoking the writ jurisdiction has been made out by the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] NPJ/wp8028-09