1 aswp-8915-11 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8915 OF 2011 The Executive Engineer PWD, Solapur and ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Jijabai Choudhary .. Respondent Mr. V.P. Malwankar, AGP for petitioners. Mr. Ameya Tamhane i/by Ms. Seema Sarnaik for respondent. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. NOVEMBER 14, 2011. P.C. 1. This petition filed by the State of Maharashtra impugns the order dated 13/4/2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal for short) in O.A. No. 527 of 2009 filed by the respondent/ original applicant. By the impugned order, the petitioners have been directed by the Tribunal to consider the case of the original applicant’s son – Pramod Appa Choudhary for compassionate appointment instead of the applicant and pass an order in accordance with law and while doing so the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of this court in Writ Petition No. 7793 of 2009 rendered on 9/12/2009. 2. It was sought to be submitted by the learned AGP that the directions issued by a Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No. 2 aswp-8915-11 7793 of 2009 have not been followed by the Tribunal and, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. Para 3 of the order dated 9/12/2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 7793 of 2009 reads as under:- “3. Respondents are directed to consider request made by the petitioner’s mother for considering the petitioner in employment by way of compassionate appointment in stead of the mother and thereafter, pass appropriate order according to the law. Entire exercise of taking decision to be completed within 12 weeks of the petitioner serving copy of this order on the respondents.” 3. In our opinion this is one more frivolous petition filed by the State of Maharashtra and we are not impressed by the explanation given by Shri Shinde, Joint Secretary in the Law and Judiciary Department while giving his opinion to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal in favour of the present respondent. The Tribunal has merely directed the petitioners to consider the case of original applicant’s son for compassionate appointment. We are shocked to note that this petition has been filed after the respondent’s son has been appointed as per the order dated 29/4/2011, though on temporary basis. 4. Hence, this petition is rejected summarily. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)