Bombay High Court
MILIND SUBHASH RAJIWADE AND ORSversusTHE COMMISSIONER, PUNE MUNICIPAL CORP.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners must first make a detailed representation to the Municipal Corporation before any mandamus directing their absorption can be entertained.
Summary
The petitioners, former employees of a Gram Panchayat, filed a writ under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the Pune Municipal Corporation to absorb them following the merger of the Panchayat area into the corporation. They alleged that similarly situated employees appointed later had been absorbed, and therefore claimed a right to be regularized. The Court observed that the petitioners had approached the High Court without first making a formal representation to the Municipal Corporation. It held that the appropriate step is for the petitioners to submit a detailed representation outlining their legal right to absorption, after which the corporation may consider regularization in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioners to make a representation within two weeks and to be given a hearing, disposing of the writ petition and the pending interim application without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to mandatory absorption into the Pune Municipal Corporation after the merger of the Gram Panchayat area.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directly without the petitioners first making a representation to the municipal authority.
Subjects
- Article 226
- mandamus
- municipal corporation
- employee absorption
- Gram Panchayat
- administrative law
- representation
- public service
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
AJIT
AJIT RAMESH
RAMESH PATHRIKAR
7-IA-3428-2026.DOC
PATHRIKAR Date:
2026.10.08
10:34:27
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5425 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3428 OF 2026
Milind Subhash Rajiwade & Ors. ...Petitioners/Applicants
Versus
The Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corp. ...Respondent
_______
Mr. Sumit V. Sonare a/w Harshavardhan K. Jadhav for Applicants/Petitioners.
Mr. Vishwanath Patil a/w Harshwardhan Karande for Respondent-PMC.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 7th OCTOBER 2026
P.C.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying
for the following substantive relief:
“ b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and that the Respondent be directed to absorb the services of the petitioners into that
of the respondent Corporation,as that of the seven employees already absorbed, from
the date of the merger ie 6th October 2017”
2. Admittedly, the Petitioners were in the service of the Gram Panchayat prior
to the Gram Panchayat area being brought within the Municipal jurisdiction of the
Pune Municipal Corporation.
3. In such context, the Petitioners contend that they are required to be
absorbed by the Municipal Corporation in respect of the work which they were
earlier performing with the Gram Panchayat.
Page 1 of 2
Ajit Pathrikar
7-IA-3428-2026.DOC
4. We find that the Petitioners have directly approached this Court without
making any representation to the Municipal Corporation. The Petitioners submit
that some persons who are similarly situated are, in fact, being absorbed, though
they were appointed later than the Petitioners by the Gram Panchayat.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the clear opinion that it would be
appropriate that the Petitioners makes a detailed representation to the Municipal
Corporation setting out their legal right for such absorption, including the actions
which were taken by the Municipal Corporation to absorb some of the Gram
Panchayat employees
6. In the event the work is available and the Petitioners can be regularized, it is
for the Municipal Corporation to consider the same in accordance with law. Let the
Petitioners make a representation within a period of two weeks from today. If the
same is made, let the Petitioners be granted an opportunity of hearing by the
designated officer and an appropriate reasoned order be passed within three weeks
from the submission of such representation in respect of the claim as being set up
by the Petitioners.
7. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.
8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
9. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the pending Interim
Application does not survive and the same is also disposed of.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Ajit Pathrikar
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.