SUBODH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. I.N. Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition questions the denial of appointment of the petitioner in Class-III or Class-IV category with the respondent no.4/School on compassionate appointment. It is contended that in terms of the policy dtd. 21/09/2017, the petitioner is entitled to appointment. It is also contended that the petitioner, at the time of demise of his father, was minor and when became major, he was required to be appointed on compassionate basis.

(2.) Mr. N.S. Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Advocate Ms Payal Kaware, holding for Mr. S.S. Dhengale, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 oppose this contention and submit that the claim is hopelessly time barred.

(3.) It cannot be disputed that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to the family in time of need [See : Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others (1994) 4 SCC 138 and Nilima Raju Khapekar Vs. The Executive Director, Bank of Baroda and others 2022 (3) Mh.L.J. 441].