IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6339 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Shrinand s/o. Manohar Deshmukh Age 35 years, Occ. Nil, R/o. Flat o.11, Surabhi Aparment, Ulkanagari, Aurangabad, Taluka and District Aurangabad. . PETITIONER. VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Department of Revenue M.S., Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2] The Chief Auditor Local Fund Accounts, M.S. Mumbai. 3] The Joint Chief Auditor, Local Fund Accounts, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS. Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh,Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondents. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 19th SEPTEMBER, 2011. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6339 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI, J.] :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2] The petitioner has approached this court, challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned MAT dated 1/7/2011, thereby dismissing the Original Application No. 139/2011, filed by the present petitioner. 3] The petition arises out of peculiar facts and circumstances. The petitioner's father who was in the service of the respondent No.3 was removed from services on 4th March, 1998. On 12th March, 1998, the petitioner's father approached the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, being aggrieved by the termination of services. Vide order dated 14th May, 1998, the learned Tribunal granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner's father, thereby staying the removal from service and further directing the petitioner's father to be reinstated. In pursuance to the orders passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner's father continued in service. However, during the pendency of the original application filed by petitioner's father, while he was still in service, he died on 17.9.2000. The petitioner, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6339 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 thereafter, immediately made application for appointment on compassionate ground. Respondent No.3 vide order dated 1.9.2008, appointed the petitioner as Jr. Clerk on compassionate ground. 4] However, it appears that on 14.1.2010, the original application bearing O.A. No. 168/1990 filed by petitioner's father came to be dismissed. Since the original application filed by petitioner's father was dismissed, the services of the petitioner also came to be terminated on 7.3.2011. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal, by filing O.A. No.139/2011. The same is also dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, the present petition. 5] We do not propose to go into the merits of the matter. The Apex Court, in identical facts and circumstances, in the matter of “Union of India and others. Vs. K.P. Tiwari,” reported in 2002 AIR SCW 2684, protected the services of an employee, appointed on compassionate ground. In the present case also, the petitioner is the victim of unfortunate circumstances. 6] Had the original application filed by the petitioner's father been permitted to be disposed of as abated, may be, the IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6339 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 4 petitioner would not have been required to face the present difficulty, which, he is now facing. It appears to be a case of either greediness or ill-advice. Be that as it may, the petitioner is now more than 35 years of age. He would not be in a position to get any service at this age. The petitioner, in fact, was appointed on compassionate ground on account of death of his father in harness. 7] In that view of the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the equity demands that the petitioner's services should be protected. Rule is , therefore, made absolute by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 1/7/2011, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 139/2011. The respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioner. The same shall be done within two weeks from today. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages for the period, during which he was not in actual service. However, the said period would be counted for grant of continuity in service for the other benefits. [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-