Bombay High Court

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PARISHAD CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that the earlier order and the 2004 Government Resolution do not show that the petitioner's father ceased employment with the Zilla Parishad, so the review is dismissed.

Summary

The Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Sambhajinagar and others filed a review application against an order dated 14 January 2026 that directed the Zilla Parishad to decide the petitioner's representation for a compassionate appointment. They contended that paragraph 4 of the order conflicted with a Government Resolution dated 25 June 2004, which they said established that the petitioner's father was an employee of the State Government, not the Zilla Parishad, and therefore the direction should be to the Collector. The Court examined the earlier order of 30 July 2004 and the 2004 Government Resolution and concluded that they did not indicate that the father had ceased employment with the Zilla Parishad. Consequently, the Court held that the original direction to the Zilla Parishad was correct and that any dissatisfaction must be pursued in the appropriate forum, not through a review. The review application was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Court's finding in paragraph 4 of the order dated 14 January 2026 is contrary to the Government Resolution dated 25 June 2004.
Whether a review application is maintainable to challenge the direction to the Zilla Parishad.
Whether the direction should be issued to the Collector of the State Government instead of the Zilla Parishad.

Subjects

review petition
condonation of delay
government resolution
employment status
Zilla Parishad
compassionate appointment
jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:44107-DB
                                                -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 14 th
              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 25 th 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
                                 -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 30 th
July, 2004 and also the Government Resolution dated 25 th 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…