RAJENDRA DATTATRAYA SAWARKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner No. 1 is seeking direction to respondents to consider the case of petitioner for grant of appointment on the compassionate ground in view of the Government Circular dated 22nd October, 1990 as well as Government Resolution dated 26th October, 1994, on the ground that the petitioner No. 2, who is the father of petitioner No. 1, was prematurely retired from service.

(2.) It is submitted that petitioner No. 2 was serving in Class III category with Respondent NO. 3 and in the year 1987 he was compulsorily retired from service w.e.f. 1.10.1987. It is contended that Petitioner NO. 2 himself on 26.2.1991 submitted an application to the respondents for grant of appointment on compassionate ground to petitioner no.1. However, the respondents did not take any steps pursuant to the said application and therefore, petitioner no. 1 on 15.4.1994 submitted another application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground to the concerned respondents. However, the respondents failed to consider the claim of the petitioner No.1 for grant of appointment on compassionate ground though the claim of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of above referred Government Circular/Government Resolution. Since the respondents failed to consider the claim of the petitioner no.1 for grant of appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner had to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition whereby the directions are sought to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that so far as Respondent no. 4 is concerned, though he is similarly circumstanced as that of the petitioner no.1, his claim for appointment on compassionate ground was considered by the respondents and was also given appointment on the compassionate ground. It is, therefore, contended that similar treatment ought to have been given to the petitioner no. 1 by the respondents.