Bombay High Court
KALYAN DOMBIVALI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.versusSHRI.DATTA PANDURANG GAIKWAD AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Appellant No.6 must be granted parity benefits identical to those given to other regularised employees, and the corporation must implement the order within one month; the other appellants' grievances remain open for representation.
Summary
The appellants, three employees of Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation, challenged the corporation's regularisation and pay‑fixation orders, contending that they were denied the benefits granted to other employees from 1999 and the notional increments up to 2011. The court noted that only appellants No.6, 11 and 19 remained in the appeal after the others withdrew. An affidavit revealed that the corporation had regularised certain Class IV employees with effect from 1 December 1999 (without financial benefits until 2011) and later granted notional increments, while appellant No.6 was regularised only in 2018 after the State Government rejected a relaxation of educational qualifications. Relying on the principle of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution, the court directed that appellant No.6 be granted the same benefits as his colleagues and that the corporation implement this within a month. The court left the remaining grievances of appellants 11 and 19 open for representation before the Municipal Commissioner. Consequently, both Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of without costs, and the pending review petition and civil applications were also dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the regularisation order dated 15 February 2013 for appellant No.11 is binding on him.
- Whether appellant No.6 is entitled to the same pay‑fixation and notional increments as other employees regularised in 1999‑2011 despite the State Government’s rejection of the educational‑qualification relaxation.
- Whether the corporation must grant parity benefits to the three remaining appellants under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- regularisation
- pay fixation
- parity
- Article 14
- municipal corporation
- employment benefits
- letters patent appeal
Judgment
1.LPA.205.2010.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.205 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.258 OF 2010
1, Datta Pandurang Gaikwad,
2. Arun Gauravnath Late,
3. Dinesh Nandlal Dhareya,
All R/o.Kalyan (E). Appellants
versus
1. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation
2. The Commissioner,
Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation. Respondents
WITH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.206 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.135 OF 2015
1. Datta Pandurang Gaikwad,
2. Arun Gauravnath Late,
3. Dinesh Nandlal Dhareya,
All R/o.Kalyan (E). Appellants
versus
1. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation
2. The Commissioner,
Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation. Respondents
_______
Mr.Yogendra M.Pendse for Appellant.
Mr.A.S.Rao for Respondents.
Ms.Neha S.Bhide, Govt.Pleader with Mr.O.A.Chandurkar, Additional
Govt.Pleader, Mr.Aditya R.Deolekar, AGP for Respondent State in LPA.205/2010.
Ms.Neha S.Bhide, Govt.Pleader with Mr.O.A.Chandurkar, Additional
Govt.Pleader, A.A.Alaspurkar, AGP for Respondent State in LPA.206/2010.
_______
Page 1 of 7
M.S.Thatte
1.LPA.205.2010.DOC
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 6th February 2026
P.C.
1. These Letters Patent Appeals are filed by the Appellant, employee of
Respondent no.1 Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation, assailing the
judgment and order dated 7 th June 2010 passed on Writ Petition Nos.443 of 2010,
565 of 2010 and 901 of 2010.
2. At the outset we may refer to the orders passed by the Division Bench
on these Letters Patent Appeals wherein this Court categorically observed that the
Appellants except Appellant nos.6, 11 and 19 the other Appellants did not have
any grievance and the appeal of the other Appellants accordingly was permitted to
be withdrawn. Thus, the adjudication of these appeals is now confined only in
respect of Appellant Nos.6, 11 and 19.
3. We may also observe that the issue which has remained for
consideration is very narrow, and almost all the issues are settled except the
grievance of Appellant nos.6, 11 and 19 in regard to regularization and as to
whether they would be entitled for the benefits to pay scale with effect from 1999
and/or the benefits which were granted to the other Appellants with effect from
2011.
4. Considering the submissions as advanced in the present appeals, the
orders passed by this Court on these appeals dated 13 th November 2025 and 30th
January 2026 are required to be reproduced, which read thus :
Page 2 of 7
M.S.Thatte
1.LPA.205.2010.DOC
“Order dated 13th November 2025 :
1. As observed by us in the earlier order out of the total 25 number of
appellants, only appellant Nos.6, 11 and 19 are pursuing this appeal. We are
informed that during the pendency of the appeal, regularization was granted which
was the original grievance of the appellants, and they ought to be regularized in
the services of the Kalyan-Dombivali Municipal Corporation. When a query was
made by us as to whether such regularization is accepted or not, insofar as one of
the appellants is concerned i.e. appellant No.11, we are informed that he had given
an undertaking dated 18 February 2013 in which he has categorically stated that
the regularization dated 15 February 2013 “is not binding on him” and only as a
matter of technicality he is filing such undertaking. He has submitted the
undertaking with the Municipal Corporation.
2. Insofar as other two appellants are concerned i.e. appellant Nos.6 and 19, no
such undertakings have been placed on record. It appears that they have accepted
their regularization and in our opinion, if that be so, further grievance ought not to
remain if such regularization is unconditionally accepted.
3. Be that as it may Mr.Pendse, learned Counsel for appellants has vehemently
contended that the undertaking of appellant No.11 needs to be construed as he is
accepting the regularization vide order dated 15 February 2013 being without
prejudice to the rights and contentions to pursue the appeal. However, in our
opinion, once appellant No.11 has stated that the regularization order is not
binding on him, whether factually he is abided by such undertaking, is now
required to be informed to the Court. Let the same be placed on record on
affidavit. Also the Municipal Corporation is permitted to file an affidavit as
appellant No.11 has maintained his position as to what existed prior to 15
February 2013. Let such affidavits be placed on record on or before the adjourned
date of hearing.
4. We shall proceed to hear the parties on the adjourned date of hearing.
5. Stand over to 20 November 2025.
6. In the meantime, list of dates, convenience compilation as also the
proposition which are sought to be advanced, be placed on record.”
“Order dated 30th January 2026 :
1. Stand over to 6 February 2026 (FOB) to enable Mr. Rao to place on record
an additional affidavit on behalf of the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation,
setting out the persons who are similarly placed as the appellants who were granted
benefits from the year 2011, and their length of service reckoned from the year
1999. His contentions is that once a large number of employees were granted such
benefits, why an exception should be made insofar as the three appellants are
concerned, particularly when some of the appellants in the present appeal have
also accepted the position of being entitled to monetary benefits from the year
2011.
2. Let the aforesaid details be placed on record by way of the additional affidavit,
and copy of the same be served on Mr. Pendse, learned advocate for the appellants,
well in advance. We shall hear the parties on the adjourned date of hearing.”
Page 3 of 7
M.S.Thatte
1.LPA.205.2010.DOC
5. It is in such backdrop that the proceedings are placed before us today. In
pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 30 th January 2026, on behalf of Respondent
no.1 Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC), an affidavit of Vasanti
Dattatray Thombre, Additional Municipal Commissioner, is placed on record, inter
alia, pointing out the correct factual position insofar as the decision as taken by
Respondent no.1 KDMC is concerned, and which was taken by General Body
unanimously in respect of the employees. The relevant portion of the affidavit is
noted below :
“4. I say that during the pendency of the present appeal, the General
Body of the Corporation, vide their resolution passed in the General
Body dt.17.3.2011,regularized the services of some Class IV
employees including the appellants w.e.f. 1.12.1999 (date of sanction
of establishment Schedule), however without any financial benefits
from 1999 to 2011, except counting the said period from 1999 to
2011 for the retirement benefits. The General Body also resolve that
all employees availing the benefit of the resolution shall furnish the
undertaking that they will withdraw the litigations if any filed in this
regard. The General Body further resolved to relax necessary
educational qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for
the said posts. The Municipal Corporation challenged the said
Resolution of the General Body to the extent of relaxing the
Educational Qualification on the ground that the General Body has
no power to relax the educational qualifications before the
Government u/s.451 of MMC Act. The Municipal Commissioner
while implementing the resolution granted the pay scale in force as on
2011.
5. I say that all appellants except Appellants nos.6, 11 and 19 have
withdrawn their appeals. The remaining appellants taken the benefit
of regularization with an exception that the said acceptance is subject
to the result of the present appeal.
6. I say that during pendency of the present appeal this Hon’ble
Court vide order in W.P No.1493/2020 filed by Jeevan Bhoir and
others, directed the Municipal Commissioner, to decide the
representation of the petitioners in the said petition. The Municipal
Corporation, pursuant to the said order of the Hon’ble Court, vide his
order dt.18.5.2022, directed regularization of some other employees
Page 4 of 7
M.S.Thatte
1.LPA.205.2010.DOC
on the same lines as that of the General Body, however directed the
Administration to fix pay scale of the regularized employees in
accordance with law.
7. I say that, in view of the said directions of the Municipal
Commissioner, the Administration carried out pay fixation of the
employees including the present 3 appellants with effect from 1999
and thereafter granted notional increments of the pay scaled up to
2011 or the date of regularization wherever necessary to bring the
uniformity amongst the employees.
8. I say that so far as the appellant no.6 Shri Datta Gaikwad is
concerned, the case of the appellant falls in to the group of 17
employees, in which the Body relaxed the educational qualification
under the Recruitment Rules, the said resolution was send for
cancellation to the state government u/s.451 of the MMC Act. The
Government of Maharashtra pleased o reject the request of the
Municipal Commissioner and confirmed the decision of the General
Body. In view of the said order of the State Government, Shri
Gaikwad and 16 others were granted regularization w.e.f. 24.11.2018
and accordingly Shri Gaikwad has been granted the pay scale and
other benefits.
9. I say that as stated herein above, except Shri Gaikwad remaining
all other employees including applicants no.11 and 19, pay has been
fixed with effect from 9.12.1999 and after granting notional
increments up to 2011, pay scales have been upgraded upto the date
of regularization.
10. I say that, in view of what has been stated hereinabove, it is
submitted that the present reliefs sought in the present appeal are
substantially granted by the Respondents.
11. For the reasons stated hereinabove the present appeal is devoid of
merits may kindly be dismissed.”
6. Considering the stand taken by the KDMC in the said affidavit, it is
clear that the KDMC has carried out pay fixation of employees from 9 th December
1999 and thereafter granted notional increments of the pay scale up to 2011 and
pay scales of the employees were upgraded upto the date of regularization so as to
bring about uniformity of the Appellants with other employees. Also, it is clear
Page 5 of 7
M.S.Thatte
1.LPA.205.2010.DOC
that insofar as Appellant no.6 Datta Gaikwad was concerned, he was one amongst
17 other employees in respect of whom the General Body relaxed the educational
qualifications under the recruitment rules and the said Resolution was sent for
confirmation/approval of the State Government under Section 451 of Maharashtra
Municipal Corporations Act. The State Government, however, did not accept the
request of Municipal Commissioner and did not confirm the decision of General
Body. As a consequence thereof, the Appellant no.6 and 16 others were granted
regularization with effect from 24th November 2018 and accordingly Appellant
no.6 Datta Gaikwad was granted pay scale and other benefits. This position is
categorically set out in the affidavit filed by Vasanti Thombre, Additional
Commissioner, that except Appellant no.6 Datta Gaikwad, pay of all other
Appellants including Appellant Nos.11 and 19 was fixed with effect from 9 th
December 1999 and they were granted notional increments up to 2011, and their
pay scales have been upgraded upto the date of regularization.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
and the affidavit filed by Vasanti Thombre, Additional Commissioner of KDMC,
we are of the opinion that insofar as Appellant no.6 Datta Gaikwad is concerned,
he also needs to be granted parity in accordance with the decision as taken by the
General Body of KDMC whereby notional increments of pay scale up to 2011 or
till the date of regularization have been granted to the other employees. Merely
because of the decision of the State Government, the Appellant no.6 Datta
Gaikwad was subjected to regularization only in the year 2018, although his case
was not different from other employees who were granted such benefit in 2011. In
Page 6 of 7
M.S.Thatte
1.LPA.205.2010.DOC
this view of the matter, and considering the applicability of the principles of parity
as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution, we are of the opinion that
Appellant no.6 Datta Gaikwad needs to be granted similar benefits like other
employees, as particularly set out in paragraph 7 of the affidavit of Vasanti
Thombre. This exercise shall be undertaken by the KDMC within a period of one
month from today.
8. Insofar as other grievances of Appellant nos.11 and 19 are concerned,
we keep open all such contentions of these Appellants to make a representation to
the Municipal Commissioner. If any such representation is made, the same shall be
decided in accordance with law and without being influenced by this order.
9. In the light of the aforesaid observations, further adjudication of the
present proceedings is not. called for. Both the Letters Patent Appeals are disposed
of in the above terms. No costs.
10. In view of disposal of Letters Patent Appeals, the pending Review
Petition and Civil Applications do no survive and stand disposed off.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 7 of 7
M.S.Thatte
Checking your session…