JUDGMENT : S.S. Shinde, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's father was working in the Government service and expired in the year 1994, when the petitioner was of 17 years old. The application was made by the mother of the petitioner to appoint the petitioner in Government service on compassionate ground. The said application was considered and the Commandant, State Reserved Police Force (SRPF) replied on 2nd December, 1994, stating that there is no mention of exact post on which appointment is sought. Further it is stated that the person, who is seeking compassionate appointment in Government service, should have completed 18 years of age and follow up should be done regarding this matter, after the petitioner attains the age of 18 years. When the petitioner attained age of 18 years, the petitioner had even applied for a certificate in respect of non appointment of any other member of the family on compassionate ground after the death of his father. The petitioner thereafter, in the year 2007 made a written application to the Commandant, SRPF along with a list of 15 relevant documents, such as death certificate of father, first request application dated 29th November, 1994, educational qualification certificates and mark-sheets etc. The Commandant, SRPF sent communication to the petitioner on 17th March, 2007 regarding clarification about the exact post on which appointment was sought. The petitioner made another application on 29th March, 2007, requesting appointment on compassionate ground on the post of clerk and attached a list of relevant documents. The Commandant, SRPF thereafter communicated the request submitted by the petitioner to the Collector, Hingoli, vide communication dated 12th/13th April, 2007. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had made so many rounds to the Commandant, SRPF office. He had an opportunity to see the wait list regarding compassionate appointments, in which his name was at Sr. No.1, whereas he realised sometime in late 2007 that the list had been changed behind his back and illegally in which his name had been shifted from Sr.No.1 to Sr. No.7. He submitted two applications to the Commandant as well as the then Dy. No.1, whereas he realised sometime in late 2007 that the list had been changed behind his back and illegally in which his name had been shifted from Sr.No.1 to Sr. No.7. He submitted two applications to the Commandant as well as the then Dy. Chief Minister regarding the change in the wait list behind his back and requested to grant him appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter the Commandant, SRPF made a communication with the petitioner, asking him to submit some more documents, vide its communication dated 6th August, 2008. The petitioner immediately submitted the requisite documents. The petitioner further submitted three more applications on 7th October, 2008, 19th November, 2008 and 11th January, 2008 to the Commandant, SRPF, requesting to grant him compassionate appointment. On 23rd March, 2009, the petitioner made an application to the DIG regarding his request to grant him appointment on compassionate ground. He made further application to the Commandant, on 1st April, 2009 and the Commandant, SRPF made a communication on 3rd June, 2009 to the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner would be appointed as and when vacancy would arise in the Government service. Further application was submitted to the Commandant, SRPF by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on 16th June, 2009. On the very next day, the Commandant, SRPF sent a letter to the petitioner stating that his name was removed from the wait list and he was ineligible to be appointed on compassionate ground, as no application had been made as per the Government Resolution dated 11th September, 1996 within one year after attaining the age of 18 years. Thereafter, the petitioner received a communication from the Commandant, SRPF regarding his ineligibility for appointment on compassionate ground. The Special I.G. made a communication to the Commandant, SRPF as well as to the petitioner stating that the petitioner's name was once included in the wait list in the year 1994, as per the letter of the Office dated 6th December, 1994. The Special I.G. further mentioned that the Office once having put the name of the petitioner on wait list, the petitioner ought to have been informed and invited for appointment each time whenever the appointments were made since 1994, or since the petitioner attained the age of 18 years. The Special I.G. further mentioned that the Office once having put the name of the petitioner on wait list, the petitioner ought to have been informed and invited for appointment each time whenever the appointments were made since 1994, or since the petitioner attained the age of 18 years. He also inquired with the office of Commandant, SRPF as to how candidate at serial no.6 on the wait list maintained for compassionate appointment was included in the list despite having the age of 10 years. The I.G. had directed the Commandant to appoint the petitioner as and when vacancy arose, as his application has been accepted and his name has been included in the wait list on 6th December, 1994. Immediately, the petitioner came to be selected on 1st August, 2009 and appointed on 18th August, 2009 on the post of peon in the Government service. The petitioner, having worked diligently and without even a single complaint from his supervisors, suddenly was issued with termination order dated 31st January, 2012, almost 3 years after he had served as a peon in the Government service. There was no notice or hearing given to the petitioner; but, a sudden order of termination was handed over to the petitioner. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the termination order made a reference to communication dated 8th April, 2011, which was a letter from the Desk Officer to the Police Director General and Police commissioner stating that as per the Government Resolutions, as it is necessary to undertake proceedings and if the conditions under it are not satisfied the Government cannot recommend any candidate to be appointed on compassionate ground as a “special case”. The name of the petitioner appeared at Sr. No. 13 on the list even though he had not been appointed as a “special case”, but rather because he had fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 26th October, 1994 for compassionate appointment. The petitioner was not only terminated under misunderstanding and misapprehension, but he was not even given an opportunity to refute the allegations on the basis of which his services had been terminated, that too after almost 3 years of serving as a peon. The petitioner submitted several representations to the Commandant, SRPF as well as other authorities to reconsider the order of termination, but it was of no avail. The petitioner submitted several representations to the Commandant, SRPF as well as other authorities to reconsider the order of termination, but it was of no avail. The petitioner filed Original Application in Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal being Original Application No. 273 of 2002 on 15th March, 2012. The said Original Application came to be decided on 20th August, 2013 vide judgment and order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the claim of the petitioner was rejected, and the Original Application came to be dismissed. Hence this Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Government Resolution dated 11th September, 1996 could not have been applied to the case of the petitioner. The Government Resolution issued in the year 1994 was applicable to the petitioner's case. It is further submitted that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal did not appreciate the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner's services were terminated without any notice and in breach of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that once the name of the petitioner was included in the wait list, there was no need of filing further application for appointment on compassionate ground. Not only that the petitioner's name was included in the wait list, but as a matter of fact, the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon and thereafter, after completing two years of service, the petitioner's services have been illegally terminated. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner passed away in October, 2013 and the financial position of the petitioner was very precarious and he could not give proper medical treatment to his mother. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying upon the pleadings/grounds taken in the petition and contents of the short affidavit tendered across the Bar, submits that the Petition deserves to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the Respondent/State, relying upon the reasons recorded by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order, submits that the Petition is devoid of any merits and the same may be dismissed. 7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. appearing for the Respondent/State. 7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. appearing for the Respondent/State. With their able assistance, we have perused the pleadings in the Petition, annexures thereto, reasons assigned by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in the impugned judgment and also the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. 8. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner was in service of the Respondents and died in harness on 1st November, 1994. According to the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner filed application on 29th November, 1994 for appointment on compassionate ground to her minor son i.e. the petitioner. It further appears from the record that the mother of the petitioner was informed by the authorities that the age of the petitioner was below 18 years at that point of time, and therefore, the mother of the petitioner should pursue the request for appointment on compassionate ground after the petitioner attained the age of 18 years. It appears that the petitioner completed 18 years of age on 30th June, 1996, however, upon perusal of the documents from the original record, which are produced by the Respondents, the petitioner's name was included in the wait list of the candidates desirous for appointment on compassionate ground. It clearly appears from the communication between the petitioner and the authorities that the petitioner's mother and the petitioner were given assurance by the concerned Respondents from time to time that he would be appointed on compassionate ground. It further appears that his name was included in the wait list and after the name was included in the wait list, there was change in the serial number and the name of the petitioner was mentioned at sr. no. 7 in the said wait list. Thereafter, on 24th April, 2009, the letter was addressed to the petitioner for submitting the written consent for giving appointment to him in a particular group or cadre. It further appears that by communication dated 17th June, 2009, the petitioner was informed by the Respondent authorities that he had submitted the application for appointment on compassionate ground belatedly, after attaining the majority, and therefore, he was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground and his name was removed from the wait list. 9. It further appears that by communication dated 17th June, 2009, the petitioner was informed by the Respondent authorities that he had submitted the application for appointment on compassionate ground belatedly, after attaining the majority, and therefore, he was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground and his name was removed from the wait list. 9. It appears that the issue was brought to the notice of the Special I.G., State Reserve Force, Nagpur by the concerned Respondents, by letter dated 3rd July, 2009. At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce herein below the said letter, which has direct bearing on the subject matter involved in this Petition, which reads thus : 10. On perusal of the contents of the said letter, it was abundantly clear that the petitioner's name was included in the wait list and there was no denial to the said fact by the Respondents. It further appears that the petitioner's name was at Sr. No.1 and then it was shifted to sr. no.7. Pursuant to the letter written by the Special I.G., State Reserve Force, Nagpur on 23rd July, 2009 to the concerned Respondents, the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon by order dated 18th August, 2009. Accordingly, the appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner. It further appears that by order dated 31st January, 2012, the services of the petitioner have been terminated by Respondent No.4. Therefore, upon perusal of the original record, it appears that the petitioner has rendered more than two years service after joining on the post of peon. Therefore, in case the Respondents wanted to take drastic action of terminating his services, in our considered view, even in absence of any provision to give notice to put forth his contention, in adherence to the principles of natural justice, the notice ought to have been given to the petitioner by Respondent No.4, so as to afford him reasonable opportunity of placing/to put forth his contentions. 11. The facts of the present case would stand on different footing, vis-a-vis, the case wherein the application is filed by the heirs and legal representative of the deceased employee belatedly and not within stipulated time, after attaining the age of majority. The petitioner's father died in the year 1994 and at the relevant point of time, the Government Resolution dated 26th October, 1994 was applicable to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner's father died in the year 1994 and at the relevant point of time, the Government Resolution dated 26th October, 1994 was applicable to the case of the petitioner. That apart, upon perusal of the original record and copies of the documents placed on record, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner's name was already included in the wait list and not only that the petitioner was appointed and served for more than two years, and therefore, the ground on which the petitioner's services have been terminated looses its importance. It is abundantly clear from reading the contents of the letter written by the Special I.G., State Reserve Force, Nagpur to Respondent No.4 i.e. the highest authority at the State level, in the facts of the case found that the name of the petitioner had already been included in the wait list and since adverse circumstances were being faced by the family of the petitioner, his appointment on compassionate ground was warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Once such conscious decision was taken by the highest authority at the State Level and the appointment was given on compassionate ground, so as to give solace to the family of the petitioner, who was facing financial crunch, in all fairness, the services of the petitioner should not have been terminated on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner was not within time from attaining the age of majority by him. By virtue of putting service of more than two years, it appears that the petitioner was proceeding in his life and pooling on his family with the aid of salary received by him, and therefore, as a modern employer or welfare State, it was not proper on the part of the respondent to terminate the services of the petitioner only on the ground that his application was not within time from the date of attaining the age when his name was already included in the wait list, and the said wait list was acted upon at the instance of the highest and controlling authority of Respondent No.4. 12. 12. It will not be out of context to make a reference to the contents of the letter written by the petitioner to the Additional I.G., State Reserve Force dated 30th October, 2013, so as to assess the mental agony and loss faced by the petitioner and his family due to termination of his services. The contents of the said letter reads thus: 13. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the petitioner's case was governed by the Government Resolution dated 26th October, 1994 and the petitioner's name was throughout included in the wait list and on the instructions of the higher and controlling authority of Respondent No.4 at state level, the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon, his services should not have been terminated only on the ground that he filed application belatedly and not within stipulated time after attaining the age of majority, when asking him to file such application itself was unwarranted since his name was already included in the wait list, as it is evident from perusal of the original record. 14. In our considered view, for more than one reasons discussed herein above, and in particular, upon reading the aforementioned portion from his letter addressed to Special I.G., it would be travesty of the justice, in case we do not invoke our discretionary and equitable jurisdiction, when the action taken by the Respondents terminating the services of the petitioner shocks judicial conscience in the peculiar facts of this case and keeping in view the object of providing the employment on the compassionate ground. 15. In that view of the matter, we quash and set aside the impugned order of termination dated 31st January, 2012 and also the judgment and order dated 28th August, 2013 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. We direct the Respondents, and in particular, Respondent No.4 to restore/reinstate the petitioner on the post of peon, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within four weeks from today i.e. on or before 19th August, 2016. However, we make it clear that the petitioner will not be entitled for salary for the period from 31st January, 2012 till he would be reinstated to the post of peon. However, the petitioner would be entitled for continuity in service and other consequential benefits, if any. 16. The Writ Petition is partly allowed and same stands disposed of. However, we make it clear that the petitioner will not be entitled for salary for the period from 31st January, 2012 till he would be reinstated to the post of peon. However, the petitioner would be entitled for continuity in service and other consequential benefits, if any. 16. The Writ Petition is partly allowed and same stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.