S.K. Klishote, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the son of Piyushkant P. Patel, an employee of the respondent Corporation, filed this petition before this Court praying for direction to the respondent Corporation to give him appointment from the date he made application for appointment on compassionate ground with all benefits as if be had been appointed oft the date of making application. The facts of the case in brief are that the father of the petitioner served the Corporation in the capacity as peon for a long period. He was due for retirement on superannuation on 2-4-1991. However, father of the petitioner sustained severe injuries while in service on 30th May, 1963 which affected his eye sight. The petitioner has come up with the case that his father was compelled to resign front service or to go on voluntary retirement as he incurred disability, or else he was told that he would be dismissed from service. Accordingly, the petitioner's father sought voluntary retirement front service of the Corporation on 29th September, 1987. The petitioner submitted application to the Corporation for giving him appointment on compassionate ground. That application came to be rejected on the ground that on compassionate ground no appointment can be given to the dependent of a retired employee. He pep the special civil application.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any provision from the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation act or the Rules or any resolution of the Corporation which provides for giving appointment on compassionate ground to the dependent of a retired employee. It is a ease where father of the petitioner was allowed to work for more than 24 years after the date on which he received the injuries. Father of the petitioner has worked for sufficiently long period and because of his disability he sought voluntary retirement which has been accepted.
(3.) The respondents have come up with the case in the reply that the claim for giving appointment on compassionate ground to the dependents of retired employees is applicable only to safai kamdars and not to other category of employees. This fact has not been controverted. So in view of this reply of the Corporation, there is no right, much less a legal right in favour of the petitioner for giving him appointment on compassionate grounds. Otherwise also fail to see any justification in the claim of the petitioner. In our country it is unfortunate that employment is limited, whereas aspirants for employment are thousand times more than the opportunities available, There may be some justification in giving employment to one of the dependents of a Government servant who died while in service. However, it cannot be said to be fair, reasonable and in consonance with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to provide appointment to the dependent of those persons who retired from service. If any appointment is made on compassionate ground it must stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has not given out in the writ petition the date on which he applied for the post. Otherwise also ten years after retirement of the petitioner's father. I do not find any justification ,to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner.;