Madhukar Uttam Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
1 W.P.No.2632/17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.2632 OF 2017 Madhukar S/o Uttam Jadhav ... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others.
... Respondents.
...
Mr.A.L.Kanade, advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.G.Karlekar, A.G.P. for the State.
Mr.Nikhil Jaiswal, advocate holding for Mr.S.S.Patunkar, advocate for Respondent No.4. ...
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND A.M. DHAVALE,JJ.
Date : 04.04.2018.
PER COURT :
1.
The father of the petitioner was serving on the post of Naka Karkoon with the Respondent No.4.
On medical ground, the petitioner was retired in the year 2000 as per Rule 72 of the Maharashtra Civil Services
2 W.P.No.2632/17 (Pension) Rules. The learned submits that as per the scheme the father of the petitioner requested to appoint the petitioner in his place on compassionate ground. The said application was not considered. Even the petitioner moved series of applications with the Respondent but to no avail. The said applications were not considered in its correct perspective.
Whatever informations were sought by the Collector and the authority,the petitioner had supplied the same. According to learned counsel, there was no impediment for the Respondents to appoint the petitioner in place of his father.
2.
It appears that the father of the petitioner retired on medical grounds. He retired in the year 2000. It also appears that application was given seeking appointment of present petitioner. The purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is to provide immediate succour to the family of the person who has retired on medical grounds or on account of other contingencies. The said claim can not be considered after lapse of 18 years. The very
3 W.P.No.2632/17 purpose of appointment on compassionate ground would not survive after lapse of 18 years. Even the petitioner now as per the cause title is 42 years of age.
3.
Considering the aforesaid conspectus of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner can not be considered.
4.
The Writ Petition as such is disposed of. No costs.
(A.M.DHAVALE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp2632.17
4 W.P.No.2632/17