1 wp1860-10.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1860/2010 Balasaheb Ratan Londhe ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ....Respondents. ... Ms.Rashmi P. Gour, Adv.for petitioner. Shri V.B.Ghatge,AGP.for State. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL AND T.V.NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 13th DECEMBER ,2011 ORAL ORDER : 1] Heard. The petitioner filed this Petition in the year 2009 seeking directions to consider his claim for appointment in the light of Government Circular dated 14/4/1981. Further contention of the petitioner is that the Nagpur Division of Forests Department had issued appointment orders in favour of certain persons by taking benefit of the said Government Circular. Certain documents are 2 wp1860-10.odt placed on record before this Court today point out that even the Pune authority of the Forest Department had issued appointment orders in favour of two persons under the said Government Circular, though mentioning that by Government Circular dated 22/8/2005, the said Circular/decision of the Government was cancelled. 2] Several affidavit in replies were filed by the State Government explaining from time to time their position. We have perused these documents placed on record and perused the replies. 3] Perusal of the Government Circular dated 14/4/81 will clarify that in case employee working with the State under Class-III and Class-IV posts retire, then his son or unmarried daughter would be considered for appointment for a period of more than one month as a special case on certain conditions stipulated under the Government Circular. The said Circular was clarified by further Government Circular dated 10/12/1981 and it was specifically 3 wp1860-10.odt mentioned therein that wards of the employees who retired prior to 14/4/1981 shall be entitled to claim benefit of this Circular meaning thereby that the wards of the son or unmarried daughter of employees who retired after 14/4/81 would not be entitled for the benefit. 4] The father of the petitioner admittedly retired on 31/5/2002. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefit under the Government Circular dated 14/8/81. 5] The next question the petitioner raised is in respect of appointments made in favour of certain persons by Officers of Forest Departments at Nagpur and Pune. 6] In the facts of the case, we direct the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, to enquire into the matter in respect of the appointments made as reflected from the record placed before this Court and if it is found that the appointments were made illegally, then take 4 wp1860-10.odt appropriate steps by issuing necessary directions by following principles of natural justice within four months from the date of receipt of this order. 7] The Writ Petition is dismissed. Authenticated copy be given to A.G.P. (T.V.NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.) umg/wp1860-10