JUDGMENT :

(M.W. Chandwani, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners seek direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the claim of petitioner No.1 for her appointment on compassionate ground on suitable post according to her qualification.

3. Father of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 deceased Manik Sitaram Bhatkulkar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased employee’ for short) was serving with the respondents as Labour since 31/03/1986. He died on 28/07/1998, while he was in service leaving behind his heirs including the petitioners. On 09/02/1999, petitioner No.2 had submitted an application for her appointment on compassionate ground with the respondent No.2. No action was taken by the respondents on the said application. A reminder letter dated 14/09/2004 was also issued to respondent No.2. In the first week of December, 2019, petitioner No.2 came to know that her name is excluded from the waiting list of the candidates for appointment on compassionate ground on account of crossing age of 45 years by her.

4. On 16/12/2019, petitioner No.2 submitted another application requesting respondent No.4 to consider the name of petitioner No.1 for appointment on compassionate ground with all necessary documents. On 22/01/2020, the petitioners again moved to respondent No.4 for considering the claim of petitioner No.1. Since, the respondents did not acted on the same, this petition has been filed by the petitioners for aforesaid direction.

5. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed their affidavit-in-reply, inter alia, contending that petitioner No.2 had first time applied in the year 2004 for compassionate appointment and she was put on waiting list. At that time, no vacancy was available in the department as per the roster. Since, she crossed the age of 45 years, her name came to be removed. Now, in place of her, name of legal representative cannot be considered in the wake of Government Resolution dated 20/05/2015. It is also contended that the petition suffers from delay and laches, since the deceased employee died in the year 1998 and the petition has been filed after 22 years. Therefore, the petition needs to be rejected.

6. Heard learned Counsel Mrs. R.D. Raskar for the petitioners. She vehemently submitted that the deceased employee was serving with respondent Nos.2 to 4 and, since, he died while he was in service, respondent Nos.2 to 4 ought to have considered the claim of petitioner No.2 for her appointment on compassionate ground. They did not consider the claim of petitioner No.2 for considerable period. After the name of petitioner No.2 was removed from the waiting list for her appointment on compassionate ground, petitioner No.2, who is daughter of petitioner No.1, applied for her appointment in place of her mother, the petitioner No.2. According to her, the respondents are deliberately not appointing them on compassionate ground. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the State Government, they ought to have considered the name of petitioner No.1 for appointment on compassionate ground. To support her contention, she seeks to rely on the cases of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Others vs. Anusree K.B., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1331 and State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1327.

7. Learned Counsel Mr. D.V. Mahajan for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that since there was no vacancy, petitioner No.2 could not be appointed initially. According to him, even the application for appointment on compassionate ground was made by petitioner No.2 after six years of death of her husband. According to him, since she had crossed the age of 45 years, her name was deleted from the waiting list maintained by respondent Nos.2 to 4 for appointment of the legal heirs on compassionate ground. There is no provision that the name of other legal heir be substituted in place of