wp4705.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4705 OF 2011 Fiyajouddin Manouddin Shaikh Age 23 years, Occ. Education R/o. Pala, Tq. Mudkhed, District Nanded ...Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Public Works Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded 3 Deputy Engineer, (Construction) Zilla Parishad, Degloor, Tq. Degloor, District Nanded ...Respondents ..... Mr. G.J. Karne, advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.S. Patil, AGP for respondent No. 1 Mr. P.P. Uttarwar, advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 29TH AUGUST, 2011 JUDGMENT :- 1 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. wp4705.11 -2- 2 The petitioner challenges the order of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 whereby his claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 3 The petitioner's father was working in the Zilla Parishad, P.W.D. Sub Division, Degloor. He expired on 8.10.2007 while in service. The petitioner thereafter applied on 2.6.2008 to the respondent No.3 for appointment on compassionate ground. Perusal of annexure “B” to the petition would reveal that the said application was duly received by the respondent No.3. 4 It appears that since the petitioner’s claim was not considered he again made representation to the respondent No. 2 on 18.9.2008. The said representation is rejected on the ground that it was not made within a period of one year from the date of death of petitioner’s father. 5 From the perusal of record it would clearly reveals that the petitioner's mother had made application on 2.6.2008 to the respondent No.3, which is much within a period of one year from the date of death of petitioner's father i.e. 8.10.2007. If the respondent No.3 has not forwarded the application of the petitioner to the respondent No.2, the petitioner cannot be faulted with for the same. In any event the petitioner's father was working with the respondent No. wp4705.11 -3- 3. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found in making application to respondent No.3. 6 The claim of the litigant cannot be denied on hyper technical ground and that too due to lack of correspondence between respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In that view of the matter, we find that the petitioner had lodged his claim well within prescribed time i.e. on 2.6.2008. 7 In the result, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of seniority and issue him appointment order on compassionate ground treating him to be on the waiting list w.e.f. 2.6.2008. 8 The petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute in the above terms. *****