1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5862 OF 2009 Chandrashekhar s/o Sudhakar Patil, R/o-Sawada, Tq-Raver, Dist-Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary for Department of Municipal Councils, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.B.R. Kedar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri. M.S. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2. Admittedly the Petitioner's mother was working as teacher in Municipal School of Raver Municipal Council. The Petitioner's mother died on 23rd April, 2006. The Petitioner's father was also serving as a teacher in the school, who got retired in the year 2007. The Petitioner's father is getting pension. According to the form filled in by the Petitioner - Exhibit R-4, the Petitioner's mother was getting family pension at the rate of Rs.4988/- per month. An amount of Rs. 1,62,910/- was received towards Gratuity. An amount of Rs.90,000/- was received towards Provident Fund and Rs.65,000/- towards life insurance claim of the Petitioner's mother. 3. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner filed application for getting appointment on compassionate ground, in the year 2007. The Municipal Council maintains a prescribed form for such applicants, which was filled in by the Petitioner. The Respondents thereafter issued 3 communication to the Petitioner through the Head Master on 6th October 2008, communicating the Petitioner that detail furnished by him are not proper and are vague. The Petitioner challenges the impugned communication in this Writ Petition. 4. In this Petition, the Petitioner prayed for directions to the Respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground. 5. Affidavit in reply is filed by the Municipal Council. The counsel for the Municipal Council placed reliance on the Judgment in the case of Smt. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006(6) ALL M.R. 85. It is the stand of the employer that the Petitioner does not have vested right to claim appointment on compassionate ground. The Petitioner's mother was getting pension. His father was getting pension. The Petitioner was having agricultural land. Considering all these aspects of the matter, the counsel submits, that the Petitioner has not made 4 out case for appointment on compassionate ground, would take decision. 6. In the light of the communication (Exhibit-K) made by the Head Master to the Petitioner, we find that the Petitioner is entitled to furnish more information to the Municipal Council and the Authorities concerned. After getting such information and collection of the record, the School Co-ordination Committee, which according to the counsel Shri. Deshmukh, would take final decision as to whether the Petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner would furnish further required details/information to the Authorities concerned within six weeks. In case such details are furnished, the competent authority shall take fresh decision in respect of the request made by the Petitioner, in accordance with the Government 5 Resolutions, scheme framed for appointment on compassionate ground and communicate the same to the Petitioner by a reasoned order. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the claim of the Petitioner. 8. With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG10/wp5862.09