ASHOK KUMAR RAMPRASAD NIGAMversusTHE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER MIRA BHAYANDER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR

                                                                           14-WP.12498.2025.doc

      Salunke
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 12498 OF 2025

                      Ashok Kumar Ramprasad Nigam           }    Petitioner
                           Versus
JAYANT
VISHWANATH            The Municipal Commissioner,           }
SALUNKE
                      Mira-Bhayander Municipal              }
Digitally signed by
JAYANT VISHWANATH
SALUNKE
                      Corporation & Ors.                    }    Respondents
Date: 2026.09.13
15:18:35 +0530




                      Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner.

                      Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mayuresh
                      Lagu, Mr. Sagar Patil and Mr. Shashank Dubey,
                      Advocates for Respondent No. 1.

                      Mr. B. V. Samant, Additional Government Pleader
                      with Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for Respondent No. 2.

                      Mr. Kuldeep R. Singh i/b. Mr. Burhan Bhukhari,
                      Advocates for Respondent No. 3.


                                 CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
                                         ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

                                DATE      : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                      P.C.:
                      1.         Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with
                      the consent of parties.

                      2.         The Petitioner claims to be a vigilant citizen of India,
                      editor of a Hindi weekly newspaper and a social worker. This
                      Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                      praying for the following substantive reliefs:-
                                                       1
                                                              14-WP.12498.2025.doc


     “a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus
          or any other writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other
          writ, order and direction against the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to
          investigate and/or review the past and present illegal
          appointments and promotions within the MBMC, as outlined
          in this petition and thereafter, dismiss and/or terminate the
          illegally appointed officer and/or demote the illegally
          promoted officers to their original post as per their
          qualification;
     b.   That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to Direct Respondents Nos.
          1 & 2 to issue a detailed report on the steps taken to address
          these illegalities and the actions taken against the responsible
          individuals.”



3.           The relevant Facts are summarized as under:-

4.           In the year 1994, the Respondent No. 3 was in the
employment of Respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation, as
Junior     Engineer      holding      a   Diploma       in   Construction
Technology on contractual basis. The said Respondent is
stated to have continued to work for more than 240 days.

5.           The Respondent No. 3 claims to be working with the
Respondent No. 1 Corporation on a permanent sanctioned
post. However, his name appears to be shown as an employee
on contractual basis.

6.           The Respondent No. 3 aggrieved by the proposed
action of his termination at the behest of the Respondent
Corporation (1st Respondent) he filed a complaint before the
Industrial Court seeking declaration to the effect that the
Respondent No.1 – Corporation be directed to confirm the
Respondent No.3 as permanent employee and to pay the
difference in wages at par with other permanent employees.

                                      2
                                                   14-WP.12498.2025.doc


Also that the Corporation be restrained from terminating
services of Respondent No. 3.

7.          The Industrial Court while allowing such complaint
vide its Order dated 5th July 2001, inter -alia held that the
Respondent Corporation has engaged in unfair practices under
Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the (Maharashtra Recognition
of Trade Union & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,
1971 (“MRTU and PULP Act”) by refusing to pay wages and
providing service conditions to the Respondent No.3 at par
with regular Junior Engineers working with the Respondent
Corporation.

8.          The Industrial Court vide its Order dated 5 th July
2001, further restrained the Corporation from committing
such unfair labour practice, directing it to pay wages to
Respondent No.3 and ensure that he be granted the same
service conditions as applicable to permanent employees.

9.          In the afore-said factual backdrop, we have heard
the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that a
contractual employee can never become a permanent employee
without undergoing the selection process and that the
backdoor entry is not permissible in Government services. He
submitted      that   the   authorities   cannot   recruit       the
staff/employees merely by passing resolutions, which are
contrary to the statutory procedure and service rules. He thus
submitted that the Petition be Allowed.

10.         Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the

                                3
                                                     14-WP.12498.2025.doc


Respondent Corporation would contend that the Petitioner has
no locus to file this Petition. On this ground alone the Petition
be dismissed. The Respondent No.3 is made permanent in
service pursuant to the order passed by the Industrial Court,
which has attained finality. On a careful perusal thereof, it is a
speaking and well - reasoned Order on the basis of and
pursuant to which, the Respondent No.3 was appointed as
permanent employee. Accordingly, the Petition is devoid of
merits and ought to be dismissed.

11.       Upon hearing the respective parties and upon
perusal of record we find that a belated attempt has been made
to oust Respondent no.3 from the service, who was Junior
Engineer as permanent employee, with effect from 18 th August
2001, pursuant to the order of the Industrial Court dated 5 th
July 2001. The said order has attained finality as the same
has not been carried in Appeal.

12.       At the initial stage of his appointment, there was no
such plea set up or even raised that he does not possess the
requisite/necessary qualifications. Moreover, his promotion/
financial upgradation has also been granted by the Respondent
Corporation, without any objection being raised, as the record
of the case would also indicate.

13.       We are of the considered view that at this stage, we
are not inclined to oust the person already in service of the
Respondent Corporation and that too at the behest of the
Petitioner, who is totally a stranger to the proceedings. The

                                   4
                                                           14-WP.12498.2025.doc


Petitioner is unable to demonstrate from the record/pleadings
the prejudice caused to him in the given factual matrix, in light
of    which    this   Petition   filed   under   Article   226     of    the
Constitution ought not to be entertained.

14.           For all the above reasons, the Petition lacks merit
and is accordingly Dismissed. Rule is Discharged.




 [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]                           [CHIEF JUSTICE]




                                     5