Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

HARILAL SHRICHAND BHAGWANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PRIN. SEC. URBAN DEV. DEPT. AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is remanded to the Industrial Court for a fresh determination of the petitioner’s eligibility as Safai Kamgar, and the writ petition is disposed.

Summary

Harilal Sharichand Bhagwane filed a writ petition challenging the denial of his appointment as a Safai Kamgar by the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner argued that he met the eligibility criteria, while the respondents relied on prior administrative decisions. The Court observed that the matter was already addressed in its order dated 20 August 2026 in Writ Petition No.11718 of 2025 and therefore remanded the case to the Industrial Court for a fresh examination of the petitioner’s claim. The Industrial Court was directed to assess his eligibility based on seniority, inclusion in the employee list related to ULP No.134 of 2007, age below 50, and submission of an Aadhaar number, and to complete the exercise within three months. The petitioner may file supporting documents, and the writ petition was subsequently disposed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner satisfies the statutory and procedural criteria for appointment as Safai Kamgar
  • Whether the Industrial Court must re‑examine the petitioner’s eligibility in light of the earlier order
  • Whether the criteria of seniority, employee list inclusion, age limit, and Aadhaar verification are applicable

Subjects

  • Safai Kamgar
  • Industrial Court
  • Eligibility criteria
  • Seniority list
  • Age limit
  • Aadhaar
  • Writ petition
  • Remand

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:39294

              Megha                                                  56_wp_17873_2025


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                  WRIT PETITION NO.17873 OF 2025

              Harilal Sharichand Bhagwane                           ...Petitioner

                                 V/s.

              The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                    ...Respondents
                                             ________________
              Mr. Ajit Pitale i/b. Mr. Siddharth Pitale for the Petitioner.
              Ms. S.D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.
                                             ________________


                                                       CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                                        DATED: 24 SEPTEMBER 2026.


              P.C.:


              1)      Mr. Pitale, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on
              instructions, submits that the issue involved in the present Petition is
              squarely covered by order dated 20 August 2026 passed by this Court in
              Writ Petition No.11718 of 2025 (Anil Pagare and Ors. V/s. The State of
              Maharashtra and Ors.) and other similar Petitions.


              2)      In that view of the matter and for the reasons recorded in order
              dated 20 August 2026, I proceed to pass the following order:-


              3)      The Proceedings are remanded before the Industrial Court for re-
              examination of the claims of the Petitioner. He shall be considered for

                                                 Page No.1 of 2
                                               24 September 2026
                          Megha                                                      56_wp_17873_2025


                          appointment as Safai Kamgar if he fulfills the criteria viz.,(i) reflection of
                          names in seniority list, (ii) reflection of names in the list of employees,
                          on whose behalf the Complaint (ULP) No. 134 of 2007 was filed, (iii) not
                          crossing the age of 50 years and (iv) producing Aadhar card number. The
                          Industrial Court shall accordingly re-examine the eligibility of the
                          Petitioner afresh according to the above criteria. This exercise shall be
                          completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of
                          three months.


                          4)          Petitioner would be at liberty to file supporting documents before
                          the Industrial Court.


                          5)          With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed of.




                                                                                 [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




Signed by: Megha S. Parab
                                                               Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge                          24 September 2026
Date: 28/09/2026 15:09:35


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.