VISHAL HIMMATRAO SHINDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:46479-DB

                                            1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                           WRIT PETITION NO.14651 OF 2025

             Vishal S/o. Himmatrao Shinde               …      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 : Ms. Neha B. Kamble
        Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 : Mr. S.B. Munde
                                           …
                     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, 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

             Labour in Water Supply and Sanitation Department. 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 the

             waiting list.
                                     3

     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

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

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.

     21. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the
         respondent Zilla Parishad erred in rejecting the case of the
                                       6

          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.

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
                                 7

          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/