FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2144 OF 2011 "Dattatraya S/o. Maruti Kale Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. Hemant Dhage, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1 to 3. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 23RD AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Petitioner's father was born on 27th September, 1943. He went missing in the year 1996. As such, he was declared to have suffered a civil death on 13th November, 2003. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The said prayer is rejected vide communication dated 21/1/2006. Hence, the present petition. 2] Perusal of the Government Resolution Dt. 26th October, 1994, would reveal that the provision of compassionate appointment is made applicable only to the dependents of such persons, who have died in harness or who were required to be FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2144 OF 2011 "Dattatraya S/o. Maruti Kale Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 retired on account of suffering serious ailments such as, TB, Cancer etc. 3] The petitioner's father is born on 27th September, 1943. As such, even if he would have been in service, he would have retired on 27th September, 2001. As such, on the date of civil death, the petitioner's father would not have been in service. Perusal of the Government Resolution dated 26th October, 1994, reveals that compassionate appointment can be granted only to the dependents of those persons, who have died in harness. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-