1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1070 OF 2010 Vasant Nathu Shitole & Ors .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri Aniket Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri S.K.Tambe,AGP for the respondents State Shri Goyanka,Adv.for Respondent no.3 .... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATE : 20 th OCTOBER, 2010. PER COURT 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, Petition is heard finally. 2] Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for petitioners submits 2 that the facts in the present case are identical with the facts in Writ Petitions No.7376/08 and 7387/08 and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the same relief as granted to the petitioners in the said Petitions. 3] Shri Goyanka, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that in the present case, the petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches, as he has applied for compassionate appointment after 4 years. 4] In so far as the ground regarding latches is concerned, no doubt that a party seeking interference of this Court, is expected to approach this Court within a reasonable time. However, it is a settled law that merely because there is delay in approaching the Court, that cannot be a ground for non- suiting the litigation. In identical facts, we have allowed the petitions of similarly situated employees. Denying the same relief to the petitioners, in our view, would be purporting to 3 injustice. 5] In the judgment in the aforesaid 2 writ petitions, we have clearly held that the policy of the respondent wherein the dependents of the employees who were terminated on the ground of permanent disability was changed w.e.f. 9/7/2006. We have found that the change in the policy was w.e.f. 28/7/2006. In fact termination order issued to the petitioners is of 28/6/2006 i.e. much prior to the date on which the changed policy was brought into effect. In that view of the matter, present case would be squarely covered by the view taken by Division Bench in the aforesaid 2 cases. 6] Rule is therefore, made absolute with no order as to costs, in the following terms : “By issuing writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents no.2 and 3 4 may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner no.2 for appointment on compassionate ground, as per the scheme existing on the date of submission of application by the petitioners i.e. 28/6/2006 and they may be further directed to issue appointment order in favour of petitioner no.2, for a suitable post as per the qualification.” (A.A.SAYED) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp1070-10