1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5440 OF 2009 Dinesh s/o Shamrao Sonawane, Age: 35 years, Occ: Stamp Vendor, R/o. Farsi Road, Amalner, District Jalgaon. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Ministry of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. Deputy Director, Professional Education and Training, Regional Office, Trimbak Naka, Old Agra Road, Nashik. 3. District Collector, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon. 4. Industrial Training Institution, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon, Through its Principal. .. Respondents ... Mr.A.P. Bhandari,Advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2010 2 PER COURT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to incorporate the petitioner's name in waiting list w.e.f. 18-12-2001 i.e. from the date of application made by the petitioner and to give extend benefits which would enure to the petitioner in terms of Government Resolution bearing No. Comp-1007/1295/S.N.181/07/Eight dated 23-04-2008. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is heir and legal representative of the late Smt. T.D. Sonawane, who was working as a Craft 3 Instructor in the Pay Scale of Rs.5500-9000. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner made application for appointment on compassionate ground, after the demise of late Smt. T.D. Sonawane. That application was filed on 26-09-2001. The competent authority, however, did not accede to the request of the petitioner on account of pending civil dispute between heirs of late Smt. T.D. Sonawane. It is not in dispute that the said civil proceedings have finally concluded on 13-04-2006. Soon thereafter, the petitioner once again represented to the authority to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate ground, as the matter has been decided in favour of the petitioner by the Civil Court. That representation of the petitioner has not been finally disposed of. With that grievance, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. 4. In this Writ Petition, the stand taken on 4 behalf of the respondents is that since late Smt. T.D. Sonawane was working as Craft Instructor in the Pay Scale of Rs.5500-9000, she would be covered in Group-B category specified in Government Resolution dated 02-07-2002. In that view of the matter, the petitioner was not eligible to get appointment on compassionate ground in terms of Government Resolution dated 28-03-2001 as that facility is extended only to heirs and legal representatives of the persons who were employed in Group-C or Group-D category. This is the only objection taken in the reply affidavit. 5. To examine the correctness of this submission, we would straightway refer to Government Resolution dated 02-07-2002. Clause-1 of the said Government Resolution defines the Group-A category. We are not concerned with the said definition. According to the petitioner, the petitioner would be covered by Group-C category, whereas according 5 to the respondents, the petitioner would be covered by Group-B category. Insofar as Group-B category is concerned, it stipulates that in cases where the Pay Scale is not less than Rs. 9000/- and not more than Rs.11500/-, the same will be covered by Group-B category. Insofar as Group-C category is concerned, it stipulates that in cases where the Pay Scale is not less than Rs.4400/- and not more than Rs.9000/-, the same will be covered by Group-C category. As aforesaid, it is not in dispute that that the Pay Scale of late Smt. T.D. Sonawane was Rs. 5500-9000/-. The natural meaning to be assigned to the above Clauses, in our opinion, is that if the Pay Scale is between Rs.4400/- up to Rs. 9000/-, such cases would be covered by Group-C category, whereas if the Pay Scale is between Rs.9001/- up to Rs.11500/-, the same will be covered by Group-B category. If any other interpretation is given to the said clauses, it would create anomalous situation. In much as, a person with the Pay Scale of Rs.9000/- will be 6 covered in Group-B category as well as Group-C category since Pay Scale of Rs.9000/- is mentioned in both categories. Such interpretation cannot be countenanced. Thus understood, the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner is ineligible as his case is covered in Group-B category, cannot be sustained. That stand will have to be stated to be rejected since admittedly the Pay Scale of the petitioner's predecessor was Rs.5500-9000. 6. In the circumstances, we allow this Writ Petition and direct respondent No. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as per the extant Scheme or Regulations and Government Resolutions, subject to other eligibility. Rule made absolute in above terms. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) ( A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) sut/FEB10/wp5440.09