Abhay J. Mantri, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Petition is pressed only insofar as Petitioner No. 2 is concerned.

3. The Petitioners seek directions to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to appoint Petitioner No. 2 on compassionate grounds.

4. The Petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Dasharath Limba Pawar, who was working as a Driver with Respondent No. 5. On 04th May 2001, he expired. Therefore, Petitioner No.1, i.e. the widow of Dasharath, made an application on 01st June 2001 to Respondent No. 3 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds at the place where her husband was working. Pursuant to her Application, her name was included in the waiting list at Serial No.19, and the Respondents assured her that she would be given an appointment immediately. However, till the year 2008, her application remained pending with the Respondents.

5. By communication dated 29th December 2008, Deputy Executive Engineer, Ujani Canal Division-8, Solapur informed her that her Application was filed, as she had completed the age of 40 years.

6. Thereafter, her son, i.e. Petitioner No.2, attained the age of majority. After attaining majority, on 05 June 2010, Petitioner No.1 submitted an application to replace her name with her son's name in the waiting list. The said Application remained pending. Respondent No.4, vide communication dated 12th August 2010, stated that, as she had completed 40 years of age on 31st May 2007, her application could not be considered and, as per the Government Rules, the name of the Petitioner No. 2 cannot be considered for inclusion in the waiting list. On that ground, her application was filed. Thereafter, she made several correspondences with Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 from time to time. Lastly, filed this Writ Petition.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently contended that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decisions of the Full Bench of this Court in Kalpana wd/o Vilas Taram and another Vs The State of Maharashtra and Others(2024(4) Mh.L.J (FB) 312) and in Anup Rajendra Maske Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur and Others(Order dated 05th August 2026 passed in Writ Petition No.2904 of 2026), as the issue in the present case is identical to the issue involved in Writ Petition No.2904 of 2026. Therefore, the observations made in the decisions of the Full Bench of this Court in Kalpana Taram (supra) and Writ Petition No.2904 of 2026 apply to the case at hand.

8. The learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 does not dispute the law laid down in Kalpana Taram (supra) and submits that the name of Petitioner No. 2 can be substituted in place of the name of his mother and his name can be included in the waiting list. Therefore, he submitted to the order of this Court.

9. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned AGP for the State and having gone through the record, at the outset, it appears that after the demise of Dasharath on 04th May 2001, Petitioner No.1 made an application on 01st June 2001 seeking her appointment on compassionate grounds. The said Application remained pending with Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 till 29th December 2008. Thereafter, they informed Petitioner No. 1 that she had completed 40 years of age and, therefore, her application was filed. Then, immediately after Petitioner No. 2 attained the age of majority, Petitioner No. 1 again submitted an application seeking substitution to replace her name with her son's name in the waiting list. The Respondent No. 4, vide communication dated 12th August 2010, stated that, as she had completed 40 years of age on 31st May 2007, her application could not be considered and, as per the Government Rules, the name of the Petitioner No. 2 cannot be considered, and the said Application was also filed.

10. Having considered the above facts and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, we would like to reproduce paragraph No.38 of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Kalpana Taram (supra), which reads as under:

                    “38. In another situation, where the applicant was a minor on the date of death of the deceased employee, and he/she makes an application on the attainment of the age of 18 years for an appointment within the prescribed period of one year, their name would continue till they attain the age of 45 years if no appointment is made. In such matters, if the period lapsed before attaining the age of 18 years is added into the period spent in making applications on attaining the age of 18 years, with the subsequent period of 27 years, i.e. till the age of 45 years if the appointment is not made, the total period would be much more than 28 years from the date of death of the employee. Thus, the lapse of a long time in making an appointment on compassionate grounds and allowing substitution of the name are two separate and distinct things, and both cannot be intermingled to deny substitution.”

11. Having considered the above facts and the law laid down by this Court, in our view, the law laid down in Kalpana Taram (supra) squarely applies to the case at hand. Therefore, we hold that seeking substitution of the name of Petitioner No. 2 in place of Petitioner No.1 on account of her having completed the age limit of 40 years is not contrary to the object and purpose for which compassionate appointment is granted. In the light of the above, we deem it appropriate to allow the Petition.

12. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) as regards Petitioner No. 2. Accordingly, Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are directed to include the name of Petitioner No. 2 in the waiting list for compassionate appointment.

13. Rule is made absolute in the above terms, insofar as Petitioner No. 2 is concerned.

14. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms.