Kum. I.K. Jain, J.

This petition is directed against the order dated 18-09-2012 passed by respondent no.2 Municipal Corporation appointing respondent no.3 and declaring petitioner ineligible for the compassionate appointment as she got married.

2. Briefly stated the facts are; Late Ukarda Athor (Athawale) was working as a Clerk in Municipal Corporation, Amravati. He had two wives namely Shantabai and Kuntabai. Ukarda died on 18-06-1997. Petitioner Vijaya is daughter of Ukarda through his first wife Shantabai. Respondent no.3 is son of Ukarda through second wife Kuntabai.

3. After the death of Ukarda, Shantabai submitted an application on 29-12-1997 to respondent no.2 stating therein that her daughter is 17 years old and on her attaining majority she may be appointed on compassionate ground in place of her father. On 19-03-1998, after petitioner attained majority she submitted an application in the prescribed form to respondent no.2 for her appointment on compassionate ground. Respondent no.3 also moved an application for compassionate appointment on 25-05-2009. On 19-04-2012, petitioner raised her objection to compassionate appointment of respondent no.3. Thereafter, impugned order dated 18-09-2012 was passed by Municipal Corporation appointing respondent no.3 Sagar and declaring petitioner ineligible for compassionate appointment as she has already got married.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of refusal to compassionate appointment petitioner filed this Writ Petition. It was dismissed on 18-03-2013, holding that on the date of appointment petitioner was a married daughter and as per the policy decision taken by State Government married daughter was not eligible for compassionate appointment at the relevant time. Petitioner filed an application for review which was dismissed vide order dated 22-11-2013. Both the orders were assailed before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 409-410 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20840-41 of 2014. The orders in Writ Petition and Review Application came to be set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 14-01-2015 and the matter is remitted back for consideration afresh. In paragraph 11, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed -

"11. In our considered view, the questions viz.: (i) the effect of “Government Resolution, General Administration Department, No. Comp. 1093/2335/M.No.90/93/Eight, dated 26.10.1994 and effect of Clause (3)(a); (ii) the plea that the appellant submitted application on 29.12.1997 and 19.03.1998, that the same was not considered by the authorities for quite sometime; (iii) at the time when the applications for compassionate appointment was considered in 2012 whether 3rd respondent was eligible to be considered; (iv) the effect of subsequent policy decision dated 26.02.2013 taken by the State Government as per which the married daughter is also eligible to get compassionate appointment; and (v) such other relevant questions which are to be examined. In our considered view, instead of this Court examining the above questions, the matter is to be remitted back to the High Court for considering the above questions in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.”

5. We have heard Mr. Asole, learned Counsel for petitioner, Mr. Bissa, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1, Mr. Kasat, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr. Autkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.3. On hearing the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we propose to take question (v) first which relates to such other relevant questions, which are to be examined. This according to us would be regarding object of rules and scheme providing compassionate employment to dependents of the deceased.

6. Learned Counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that before petitioner attained majority her mother submitted an application in the year 1997 itself informing the Municipal Corporation that petitioner was 17 years old