1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4331 of 1994 1] Sanjiv s/o. Rupa Hanskar Age 22 years,Occ. Nil. 2] Ramdas s/o. Suka Hanskar Age 60 years, Occ. Retired Class IV servant Both R/o. Near Municipal Hospital Raver, Tal. Raver District Jalgaon. Petitioners Versus 1] State of Maharashtra 2]The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Raver, Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon. Respondents Mr. P.R. Patil,, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, AGP for respondent No.1. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA,JJ. DATE : 14TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI,J.] :- 1] The petitioner No.1 claims appointment as legal heir 2 of the petitioner No.2, in the respondent No.2 Municipal Council, on account of the recommendations of the Lad Committee. 2] Shri Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that since the petitioner No.1 is the nephew of the petitioner No.2 and since the sons of petitioner No.2 are not taking care of the petitioner No.2, the petitioner No.1 is entitled to be appointed. 3] Shri Barlinge, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner No.1 does not come in the zone of “close relatives” which is provided by the Government Resolution. Admittedly, the elder son of the petitioner No.2 is already employed and his second son does not desire to get employment with the Municipal Council. . The Government Resolution dated 5th November, 1992, defines “close relatives” who could be granted appointment in view of the Lad Committee's recommendations. They include, son, brother, sister (widow), daughter in law and son in law. It further provides that such a person should give an undertaking that he would look after the person, who is likely to retire. Since nephew is 3 not included in the definition of “close relatives” we find that the claim of the petitioner is without substance. In any case, elder son of the petitioner No.2 is already gainfully employed. It cannot, therefore, said that the petitioner No.1 is entitled to the benefit of the Lad Committee's recommendations. Petition is without any substance. The same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp