HARSHAL AVINASH SONAWANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:46478-DB
                                              1                            WP.14650.25.odt

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO.14650 OF 2025

                   Harshal S/o. Avinash Sonawane              …     PETITIONER

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

             2.    District Collector,
                   Jalgaon.

             3.    The Chief Executive Officer,
                   Zilla Parishad,
                   Jalgaon.
             4.    Executive Engineer,
                   Department of Rural Water Supply,
                   Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon                    …    RESPONDENTS

                                                ...
                      Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Mayur M. Subhedar
                       AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. V.M. Kagne
                     Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 : Mr. J.M. Wagh
                                                …

                                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                            WP.14650.25.odt

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

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

Parishad thereby refusing to consider his 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 Deputy Engineer. His service was thereafter

           regularized by Respondent No. 3, however, he expired

           while in service.

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

           Respondent No. 3 seeking appointment on compassionate

           ground. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.3 placed him on
                                3                           WP.14650.25.odt

          the waiting list.

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

          candidates for compassionate appointment. However,

          name of the 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 his 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
                              4                           WP.14650.25.odt

Parishad, his 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

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.
                               5                             WP.14650.25.odt

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 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.
                                   6                             WP.14650.25.odt

          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
              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.
                                 7                        WP.14650.25.odt

   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 his 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/