The main legal point established in the judgment is that the permissibility of substituting the name in the waiting list for compassionate appointment is subject to the age restriction of 45 years imposed in the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017.

ORDER :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. By the present petition, the petitioners challenge the conditions in the Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015 and 21.09.2017 prohibiting substitution of the name in the waiting list for compassionate appointment as well as imposing restriction on maximum age of 45 years for being considered for compassionate appointment.

2. Facts of the case fall in narrow compass.

The husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of the petitioner No. 2 was employed as Gram Sevak in the respondent No. 2 Zilla Parishad, who died in harness on 13.06.2013. The petitioner No. 1, being widow submitted application for grant of compassionate appointment on 10.12.2013 and by November 2014 all the deficiencies in the application were cleared by submitting requisite documents. It is the case of the petitioners that name of the petitioner No. 1 was included in the waiting list for compassionate appointment at Sr. No. 47. The petitioners have placed on record the waiting list of the Zilla Parishad Parbhani as on 31.08.2020, in which the name of the petitioner No. 1 figures at Sr. No. 47.

3. On 19.09.2017, the petitioner No. 1 applied to the respondent Zilla Parishad for substitution of her name with the name of the petitioner No. 2 (son) in the waiting list for compassionate appointment. The same was followed with the reminder dated 03.05.2019. However, it appears that no response was received by the petitioners and as stated hereinabove, the name of the petitioner No. 1 continued to figure in the waiting list for the month of August 2020.

4. It appears that the petitioner No. 1 has crossed the age of 45 years. Non substitution of name of the petitioner No. 1 with that of No. 2 and crossing of age of 45 years are apparently the reasons why the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court by filing present petition. Even though there is no specific communication or order rejecting the case of the petitioners, they apprehend that twin conditions in the Government Resolutions dated 20.05.2015 and 21.09.2017 would extinguish the rights of the petitioners for being considered for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the petitioners have challenged both the Government Resolutions dated 20.05.2015 and 21.09.2017. The petitioners are challenging condition No. C of G. R. dated 20.05.2015, under which it is directed that there is no provision for substitution of name in the waiting list. The petitioners have also challenged the condition No. 21 in the G. R. dated 21.09.2017, under which again the prohibition is imposed on substitution of the name in the waiting list.

5. The respondent No. 2/Zilla Parishad has filed affidavit in reply resisting the petition inter alia on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 has already crossed age of 45 years. They contend that there is no provision for substitution of the name in the waiting list. Already period of more than seven years has lapsed from the death of the employee and, therefore, the objective for grant of compassionate appointment is frustrated.

6. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.

7. Mr. Sambhaji Tope, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dnyaneshwar Ramkishan Musane Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2020 (5) Mh. L. J. 381, by which this Court has struck down the restriction imposed in the G. R. dated 20.05.2015 for substitution of name of ward of deceased employee in the waiting list. He also relied on the order of this Court in the case of Prashant Bhimrao Desai and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another dated 24.09.2021 in Writ Petition No. 11697 of 2019, under which the State Government was supposed to formulate a policy for substitution of name of representative of the deceased employee in the wait list for compassionate appointment. Mr. Tope has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nagmi Firdos Mohammad Salim and another Vs. State of Maharashtra an