Arun S/O Suryabhan Deshkar v. State Of Maharasthra,Thr. Its Secretary Dept. Of General Administration And Others

2025:BHC-NAG:6004-DB 19-WP-4563-21.odt 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.4563 OF 2021 Arun Suryabhan Deshkar, Tulsibag Road, Mahal, Nagpur -vsState of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and the Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri C. F. Bhagnani, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N. R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Smt S. S. Jachak, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : June 24, 2025 1.

Heard.

2.

The mother of the petitioner Smt. Suman Deshkar was discharging duties in the capacity of Peon with the respondentMunicipal Corporation who stood superannuated on 11/09/2012 on medical ground.

3.

The petitioner vide communication dated 15/01/2013 sought compassionate appointment. Said request has been turned down, as such this petition.

4.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the scheme for compassionate appointment is meant for the employees suffering from Cancer, Paralysis and their dependents are entitled for compassionate appointment. The term used in Clause-G(2) of the Government Resolution dated 22/08/2005 has to be read in the context of social purpose and the object which is sought to be achieved under the scheme. According to him, the mother of the petitioner was Schizophrenic which fact is out of record.

5.

The mother of the petitioner superannuated on medical ground on 11/09/2012. For the last 12 years there is no employment made available to the petitioner by the respondent.

19-WP-4563-21.odt 2/2 6.

Fact remains that the petitioner approached this Court at belated stage as initial rejection of the prayer of the petitioner was way back in 2014.

7.

Merely because another communication is issued on 20/02/2019 by the respondent Municipal Corporation, that by itself would not prove that the claim of the petitioner is within limitation. Even otherwise, the object with which the appointment on compassionate ground is sought by the petitioner got extinguished by lapse of time. 8.

That being so, there is no substance in the petition. Same stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Sachin S. Deshmukh, J.) (Nitin W. Sambre, J.) Asmita