PRANJALI PRADIP JAHAGIRDARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:46477-DB

                                                 1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO.1232 OF 2026

                  Pranjali D/o. Pradip Jahagirdar                 …     PETITIONER

                               VERSUS

        1.        The State of Maharashtra,
                  through its Secretary,
                  Department of Village Development,
                  Mantralaya, Mumbai.

        2.        District Collector,
                  Latur.

        3.        The Chief Executive Officer,
                  Zilla Parishad, Latur

        4.        Executive Engineer,
                  Department of Rural Water Supply,
                  Zilla Parishad, Latur                     …    RESPONDENTS

                                               ...
                     Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Mayur M. Subhedar
                    AGPs for Respondents No.1 and 2 : Ms. Neha B. Kamble
                      Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. U.B. Bondar
                                               …

                         CORAM            : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
                                            ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                         Reserved on      : 10.09.2026
                         Pronounced on : 05.10.2026


         JUDGMENT (PER: ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :

             1.     Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

             parties, the petition is finally heard at the stage of admission.
                                   2

  2.    The petitioner before this Court is a legal heir of deceased Zilla

  Parishad Employee, she seeks to challenge the action of Zilla Parishad

  thereby refusing to consider her claim for compassionate appointment

  on the ground that, the salary of the deceased employee was paid from

  self-generated funds of the Zilla Parishads and not from Government

  funds.

  3.    The core question that falls for consideration in this Writ Petition

  is, whether the scheme for compassionate appointment is applicable to

  a permanent employee on the establishment of the Zilla Parishad, who

  is paid from the self-generated funds of the Zilla Parishad ?

Factual Matrix : -

  i)    The petitioner’s father was initially appointed with Respondent

        No.4 Department, which falls under Respondent No. 3 - Zilla

        Parishad, on a temporary basis to the post of Electrician. His

        service was thereafter regularized by Respondent No. 3, however,

        he expired while in service.

  ii)   Upon death of petitioner’s father, she made application to

        Respondent No. 3 seeking appointment on compassionate ground.

        Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.3 placed her on the waiting list.

  iii) Respondent No. 3 published another waiting list of eligible

        candidates for compassionate appointment. However, name of the
                                3

     petitioner was found in a separate chart prepared in respect of

     candidates whose fathers were working on posts maintained from

     the self-generated funds of Respondent No. 3 - Zilla Parishad.

iv) The petitioner, therefore, made representation, thereby requesting

     Respondent No. 3 to consider her claim for appointment on

     compassionate ground.

v)   Respondent No. 3, however, relying upon the Government

     Resolution dated 31.07.2025, by which the State Government

     declared that the legal heirs of deceased employee who was

     working on posts maintained from the self-generated funds of the

     Zilla Parishad would not be entitled to the benefit of the scheme

     for compassionate appointment, rejected the petitioner’s claim.

     The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court.


4.   Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the

petitioner’s father was treated as regular employee of the Zilla

Parishad, her case could not have been placed in a separate category of

employees   whose    salaries   were   paid   from   the   self-generated

funds/income of the Zilla Parishad. He submits that the approach of

Zilla Parishad, thereby depriving the petitioner from claiming

compassionate appointment only on that ground is therefore
                                 4

unsustainable.    In support of his submission he has relied on the

decision of this Court, in Writ Petition No.9119 of 2021, in the case of

Amol Sahebrao Suryawanshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,

along with connected Writ Petitions, decided on 20-08-2022.

5.     Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishad, by

heavily relying upon the Government Resolution dated 31.07.2025,

submitted that, as per the audit report of the Local Fund Audit

Department, the dependents of employees whose salaries were paid

from the self-generated funds of the Zilla Parishad, were not eligible for

appointment on compassionate grounds, as the concerned scheme is

not applicable to such category of employees. It is, therefore, urged

that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

6.     We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel

appearing for the Zilla Parishad, learned AGP, and have perused the

record.

7.     The issue involved in this Writ Petition is no longer res integra in

view of ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Amol Sahebrao

Suryawanshi (supra), wherein this Court held thus:

     “19. In the case of Ashish Vinayak Kute (supra), the deceased
          employee was working on the post of Hand Pump Electrician,
          which was created by the Zilla Parishad by paying salaries
          and other benefits through its maintenance and repairs fund.
          Relying on the case of another employee whose salary was
                             5

    also paid from maintenance and repairs fund of the Zilla
    Parishad and whose ward was granted compassionate
    appointment, this Court allowed the writ petition directing
    consideration of the case of the petitioner therein for
    compassionate appointment. It appears that despite the order
    dated 02.07.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 5801 of 2012,
    the Zilla Parishad Aurangabad once again rejected the case of
    the petitioner therein for compassionate appointment on the
    ground that his father was not a permanent employee.
    Therfore, this Court was again required to pass an order
    dated 04.12.2015 in Writ Petition No. 5910 of 2014 holding
    that it was not open for the Zilla Parishad to come to the
    conclusion that the employee was not permanent on account
    of the previous order dated 02.07.2013. It was therefore
    directed to treat the deceased employee as permanent for the
    purpose of consideration of the case for compassionate
    appointment.

20. In the case of Bhakti Nandkumar Jagdale (supra), the
     application for compassionate appointment was rejected on
     the ground that the salary of the deceased employee was paid
     from Zilla Parishad funds and not from the Government
     funds. By relying on various orders previously passed, this
     Court allowed the petition directing consideration of the case
     for compassionate appointment by treating the deceased
     employee as permanent. Similar orders are also passed in the
     case of Shubham Papanna Darelu Vs. The State of
     Maharashtra dated 18.04.2016 in Writ Petition No. 10296 of
     2015.
21. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the
     respondent Zilla Parishad erred in rejecting the case of the
     petitioners for compassionate appointment solely on the
     ground that the salary of the deceased employee was being
     paid through the self generated funds/income of the Zilla
     Parishad. We hold that even the employees who were being
     paid initially from self generated funds/income of the Zilla
     Parishad and later on conferred permanent status and
     brought on permanent establishment of the Zilla Parishad are
     also required to be treated as covered in the scheme for
     compassionate appointment.
22. Consequently, we allow the present petitions and direct the
    respondent/Zilla Parishad to consider the cases of the
    petitioners for compassionate appointments on their own
                                       6

            merits within a period of three (03) months from today and
            communicate orders on the applications to the respective
            petitioners.”
8.        In the light of aforesaid observations of this Court, we are of the

view that the stand taken by the respondent- Zilla Parishad that, the

deceased employee was working on the post maintained from self-

generated funds and, therefore, his legal heir is not entitled to

compassionate appointment, is arbitrary and unreasonable. We thus

find that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate

ground deserves to be considered. In this view of the matter, the Writ

Petition deserve to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following order:

                                ORDER

 I.       The Writ Petition is allowed.

 II.      The Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to consider the case

          of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on its own

          merits within a period of three months from the date of

          communication of this order and communicate the order

          passed on her application.

 III. Rule is thus made absolute in the above terms, with no order

          as to costs.



(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)                      (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

habeeb/