FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.453 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard Counsel for the parties. 2 The grievance in this petition is that the petitioner’s father had to take invalidated pension, which happened on 18th June, 2005. As per the prevailing norms the petitioner being heir of the employee who had taken invalidated pension, could have applied for appointment on compassionate ground on that count. That was governed by the norms provided in Government Resolution dated 22nd August October, 1994. There is no difficulty in accepting the argument of the petitioner to this extent. 3 The petitioner however, made an application for appointment on compassionate ground only on 9th March, 2006. In the intervening period, the General Administration Department of State of Maharashtra issued Government Resolution dated 22nd August, 2005, which provides that facility of appointment on compassionate ground on account of premature retirement of the employee due to cancer, paralytic attack and accident can no more be the basis to consider such request. The only criteria that would prevail for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground is the death of the employee while in service in respect of group (C) and (D) employees. Obviously, after introduction of Government Resolution dated 22nd August, 2005, it is in supersession of all earlier circulars. As is noted in the said Government Resolution, the application preferred by the petitioner was required to be processed in terms of the latest resolution dated 22nd August, 2005. The argument of the petitioner is that as per the resolution of 1994, the petitioner could have given application for appointment on compassionate ground within five years from the date of petitioner’s father invalidated out from Government service, which happened on 18th June, 2005. We do not find merits in this submission. It is not open to this Court to call upon the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner de hors the resolution dated 22nd August, 2005 which is in force. Accordingly, there is no substance in this petition. Dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J) 20.01.2010. PLK/*