1 923.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 923 WRIT PETITION NO. 9709 OF 2019 ANJALI GOPALKRISHNA KHEDKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Humbe Vilas M. AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.J. Salgare Advocate for Respondent No.2 to 5 : Mr. Mene Santosh B. … CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 18.12.2025 PER COURT : . Heard. 2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner is taking exception to the order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred in short 'the M.A.T.), Aurangabad in Misc. Application. No.188 of 2017 by which the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing original application came to be turned down. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, father of the petitioner died on 11.05.2009 and immediately on 13.10.2009, petitioner made an application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. It is his contention that the said application went unattended at the behest of the Respondents. 2025:BHC-AUG:36809-DB 2 923.doc 4. The learned counsel further submits that on 18.11.2011, the petitioner made another application to respondent/Authorities which came to be turned down on 09.12.2011 on the ground that, said application was not filed within a period of one year. The learned counsel also took this Court through the application dated 20.12.2011 wherein, the petitioner admits that delay has occurred in filing application on account of non-receipt of heirship certificate and therefore, requested the respondent/authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel has also taken this Court through the order passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Tq.Parali District Beed dated 11.11.2011 issuing heirship certificate in favour of the petitioner. It is further contended that after receipt of said heirship certificate, the same was subject to challenge in another proceedings as a result of which the petitioner could not make an application to the respondent/authorities seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention of this Court to communication dated 30.08.2016 by which respondent/authorities directed petitioner to submit the heirship certificate and this, according to the petitioner is a cause of action for her to approach the M.A.T. for challenging the said communication. Since, there is a delay of 4 years and 4 months in filling Original Application, the petitioner has preferred the Misc. Application No.188 of 2017, seeking condonation of delay and learned Tribunal has turned down the same by the impugned order by observing that since, no sufficient cause has been shown for the delay to be condoned and that 3 923.doc is how the petitioner is before this Court. 6. We have perused the documents annexed with the Writ Petition and after considering the said documents and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.P., we find that so far as the explanation offered by the petitioner that the first rejection is on the ground of want of heirship certificate, does not appeal to us for the reason that the respondents have never insisted petitioner to submit the heirship certificate. On the contrary, vide earlier communication dated 09.12.2011, the application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground of delay. The petitioner herself has admitted by communication dated 20.12.2011 that the delay has occurred, due to non-availability of heirship certificate. The contents of said letter is reproduced as below : ^^ojhy fo”k;kl vuql:u eyk U;k;ky;kps okjl izek.ki= dk<.;kl osG ykxyk o U;k;ky;kdMwu okjlk izek.ki= 11-11-2011 jksth r;kj gksowu uarj eyk izkIr >kys- R;keqGs vuqdaikoj ukSdjh feG.;kpk vtZ lknj dj.;kl m’khj >kyk vkgs- djhrk] ekfgrhLro o ;ksX; dk;ZokghLro fouarh-** 7. When we have already observed that once the petitioner’s application on 09.12.2011 has been rejected on the ground of delay and not on any other ground, the contention of the petitioner that vide communication dated 30.08.2016, she was asked to get heirship certificate while denying her appointment on compassionate ground is after thought. It is pertinent to note that the first cause of action for the petitioner to approach the MAT was rejection of earlier application on 4 923.doc 09.12.2011. The petitioner has utterly failed to explain delay from 09.12.2011 till 30.08.2016 as nothing has came on record that in that intervening period the authorities have at all insisted for heirship certificate and it took almost four years to obtain the same. 8. We have perused the order passed by learned M.A.T impugned herein and we find that the learned tribunal has taken a plausible view by giving cogent reasons that the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause in seeking condonation of delay which is almost of 4 years and 4 months in filing Original Application. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find that the petitioner has utterly failed to show sufficient cause in seeking condonation of delay and therefore, we do not find any perversity in the order passed by the learned M.A.T., thereby, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 10. The Writ Petition therefore, sans merit and the same is hereby dismissed. ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) vsj..