Aman S/O Dadaji Fulzele v. The Deputy Director Of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4614 of 2017 (Aman s/o. Dadaji Fulzele ...Vs..The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpu rdivision, Nagpur & Ors.) ______________________________________________________________________________ OfÏce Notes, OfÏce Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's orders Mr. P.S. Wathore, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Tembhre, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & R.B.DEO, JJ.

DATE : 24.07.2017.

Heard.

Petitioner claims direction to respondents to consider his representation on sympathetic grounds.

We have heard learned counsel for petitioner as also learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Papers show that father of petitioner was working as Physical Training Instructor and took voluntary retirement on 27.2.2003 because of paralysis. He suffered attack of paralysis on 25.8.2000. Petitioners' son was minor and he has been provided

employment as a Peon on compassionate ground for the first time on 1.10.2013.

The authorities while considering the case for approval have noted that the scheme itself underwent change on 2.3.2012 and provisions made for appointment of Ward of such persons rendered medically unfit has been canceled. Thus after 2.3.2012, there is no right in favour of anybody to claim employment in such a situation on compassionate ground.

Petitioner has not produced before us order passed by Management and approved by department retiring his father on medical grounds. Similarly, his appointment on compassionate ground is after cancellation of the eligibility condition and therefore in its absence.

Employment on compassionate ground is a concession extended to a family in distress. The events necessitated such employment in 2003. However, here, father

has taken voluntary retirement and it was not a case of compulsory retirement on medical ground against his wish. Thus, we do not find any family in distress in 2003 or even in 2013. We, therefore, find petition misconceived. Rejected.

JUDGE JUDGE Belkhede, PA