-1- 903-CA-10873-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10873 OF 2026 IN REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL)(ST) NO.22925 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10282 OF 2025 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS ..… Mr. Prashant R. Nangare, Advocate for Applicants Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondents – State. Mr. Shrimant Mundhe, Advocate for Respondent No.4. ..... CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants. 2. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. 3. The Review Application is heard. Learned Advocate for the Review Applicant invited our attention to the order dated 14th January, 2026 passed by this Court. He submits that, the observations made by this Court in paragraph no. 4, on page no. 16, are contrary to the Government Resolution dated 25th June, 2004. According to the learned Advocate, pleading of Government Resolution clarifies the position that the father of the petitioner was an employee of the State Government and not of the Zilla 2026:BHC-AUG:44107-DB -2- 903-CA-10873-2026 Parishad. He therefore submits that, in paragraph no.5, the directions which has been issued to the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad to decide the petitioner's representation be recalled and the directions be issued to the Collector of State Government. 4. We have perused the said order passed by this Court. Paragraph no. 4 is the finding given by the Court on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 25th June, 2004, wherein the Court has categorically held that on the basis of the order passed on 30th July, 2004 and also the Government Resolution dated 25th June, 2004, it cannot be said that the father of the petitioner has ceased from continuing in the employment of the Zilla Parishad. 5. In this accord, the Court has directed the Zilla Parishad Aurangabad to decide the representation of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. If the reasoning given by this Court does not satisfy the petitioner, then the remedy is not by way of Review Application, but to challenge the same order before the appropriate forum. 6. In light of the above, we do not find any merit in the Review Application and the same is dismissed. [HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] Tandale