(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2218 OF 2008 Smt. Sunita Eknath Magre, Aged : 29 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Ekta Nagar, Jatwada Road, Harsul, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, through its : Deputy Commissioner of Administration. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. R.S. Sarvadnya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Kadam, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mrs. Manjusha Deshpande, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ (2) CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 21ST JANUARY 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the husband of the petitioner was employed as a daily wager in the post of a Cleaner, in the employment of the respondent no.2 / Corporation, since the year 1993. The Government issued a resolution approving the decision of the Corporation to grant regularization to the daily wage employees on the basis of seniority and subject to the satisfaction of norms laid down in the Government Resolution by the employees concerned. The Government Resolution was issued on 10th November 2003, whereas the petitioner's husband, who was a daily wager, expired on 8th December 2003. It is submitted that the deceased husband of the petitioner was very much eligible to be regularized. However, due to his death, he could not receive the order in regard to regularization of his service. 2. The petitioner claims to have made representations. The first one being dated 12th August 2004 and thereafter representations were also made allegedly on 2nd January 2007 and 16th June 2007. (3) 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner restricts his prayer only to the extent of issuing direction to the Corporation to consider the representations made by the petitioner, claiming appointment on compassionate ground, in accordance with law, at an early date, as according to him, the Corporation, as yet, has not decided the representations. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 / Corporation, submits that she is not aware as to whether the representations are decided or not. She, therefore, submits that if direction in that respect is issued, the same be issued with a clarification that "the representations be decided, in the event, they are pending". 5. In that view of the matter, we direct the respondent no.2 / Corporation to decide the representation made by the petitioner, dated 12th August 2004 and/or dated 2nd January 2007 or 16th June 2007, claiming appointment on compassionate ground, as expeditiously as possible, in the event, the representations are not decided here before and are pending. (4) 6. The petition is disposed of with the above directions. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2218