1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3407 OF 2010 Mujeeb Rashid Manoor, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Senior Clerk, (At Present Nil), R/o House No. 57, Ekta Nagar, Taroda (Bk), Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Chief Engineer/Administrator, Aurangabad Irrigation, Aurangabad. 3. The Superintending Engineer/ Vigilance Cell, Circle Irrigation Department, Aurangabad. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Uppar Pen Ganga Project Circle, Workshop Road, Nanded. .. .. Respondents Shri S. B. Talekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri P. R. Tandale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4. 2 CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 09TH AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition the petitioner named above seeks to challenge Clause 1(f) of the Government Resolution dated 28.03.2001, and Clause 2(i) of the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2005 and further impugns the judgment and order dated 08.03.2010 in Original Application No. 87 of 2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad. The petitioner thus, impugned the office order No. 23 of 2010 dated 30.01.2010 thereby terminating the services of the petitioner issued by the respondent No. 3 and prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits. 3. The material facts that are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated as under : 3 The petitioner's father namely Manur Abdul Rashid was working as Sub Divisional Officer, UPP, Sub Division No. 40, Ardhapur, expired on 14.08.1991 due to cancer while in service. The petitioner made applications for his appointment on compassionate ground on account of demise of his father. He waited for about 10 years. After considering his case for appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner came to be appointed on the post of Senior Clerk in the office of Executive Engineer, UPP, Division No. 8, Nanded vide order No. 199 of 2008 dated 31.07.2008, as per existing policy of the Government on 01.11.1993. 4. It appears that, the policy decision was taken by the Government by virtue of Government Resolution dated 28.03.2001, by which it was decided that appointment on compassionate ground would be made to the wards of Group C and Group D employees who died while in service. Thus, Government Resolution therefore, modified the earlier Government Resolutions which were in existence when the father of the petitioner died. The petitioner had been appointed on the post of senior clerk. Therefore, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 30.01.2010, as the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the modified Government Resolution 4 relating to the appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 87 of 2010 which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that Tribunal had taken a view in Original Application No. 1095 of 2009 that the Government policy existing on the date of the actual appointment would be required to be taken into consideration. 5. Our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 4903 of 2007. Priyadarshan Pradeep Phaltane Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. dated 03.03.2009. The Division Bench in no uncertain terms had held that the Government Resolution dated 28.03.2001 could not have made retrospectively operative to the case of the petitioner. The Division Bench further observed that the wording of the Government Resolution make it clear that it is prospective in its application and would come into effect from 28.03.2001. In that light of the matter, therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal dismissing the Original Application is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5 6. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. The termination order of the petitioner is also quashed and set aside and the petitioner shall be reinstated with continuity in service. 7. Mr. Talekar, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that, the petitioner would not claim the arrears of back wages. In that light of the matter, Rule made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/Aug.10