Bombay High Court
VAIBHAV SHASHIKANT DHARMADHIKARIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the Class‑3 post and the municipal corporation must issue a revised appointment order.
Summary
The petitioner, Vaibhav Dharmadhikari, was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Coolie (Class‑4) in Jalgaon Municipal Corporation in 2005, although his qualifications entitled him to a Class‑3 post. He repeatedly submitted representations in 2005, 2007, 2016, 2017 and 2018 requesting a revised appointment order, citing Government Resolutions dated 26‑Oct‑1994 and 30‑Jan‑2010 which mandate promotion of eligible compassionate appointments to Class‑3 when vacancies exist. The municipal corporation acknowledged the existence of vacant Class‑3 posts but failed to act on the petitioner’s representations. The respondents argued that the petitioner had already received benefits under a time‑bound pay scale and could not seek further promotion. The Court examined the statutory guidelines, the petitioner’s continuous representations, and the corporation’s duty to honour the resolutions, concluding that the petitioner’s right to promotion could not be denied. Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the municipal corporation to issue a revised appointment order placing the petitioner in a Class‑3 post within fifteen days.
Issues considered
- Whether a compassionate appointment made under the 1994 Government Resolution must be revised to a Class‑3 post when the appointee possesses the requisite qualifications and a vacancy exists.
- Whether the municipal corporation is legally bound to act on the petitioner’s repeated representations for a revised appointment.
- Whether the delay in filing the writ petition bars the petitioner from obtaining the revised appointment.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- Class‑3 promotion
- municipal corporation
- revised appointment order
- government resolution
- service law
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:23964-DB
902 WP2647.2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2647 OF 2022
. VAIBHAV SHASHIKANT DHARMADHIKARI,
Age – 43 years, Occu.- Service,
R/o. Plot No.42, Block No.2,
Shri. Mahalaxmi Nivas, Devendra Nagar,
Model Colony, Jalgaon,
Tq. & Dist.- Jalgaon .. Petitioner
Versus
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
Secretary, Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, District- Jalgaon .. Respondents
...
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. Seema Gaikwad h/f. Mr. Ajay G.
Talhar
AGP for Respondent No.1: Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sandesh R. Patil
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, JJ.
Date : 17.06.2026
PER COURT :-
1. The present petition has been filed for issuance of
directions to Respondent No.2 to decide the representation
submitted by the Petitioner for seeking revised appointment
order thereby placing the Petitioner on the post of Class-3 from
Class-4 post in view of the Government Resolution dated
902 WP2647.2022
-2-
30.01.2010 within some stipulated period. The another prayer is
to direct Respondent No.2 to issue the revised appointment order
to the Petitioner on the post of Class-3 in Respondent No.2
Municipal Corporation considering the educational qualification
of the Petitioner and to grant all other consequential monetary
benefits to the Petitioner.
2. The Petitioner has come with a case that he came to be
appointed on compassionate ground in Respondent No.2
Municipal Corporation vide appointment order dated 05.07.2005,
on the post of Coolie i.e. Class 4 post in the Pay Scale of Rs.2550 -
3200. The said compassionate appointment was in view of the
fact that the petitioner’s father had retired on medical ground.
The petitioner’s father was working on the post of Instrumental
Mechanic in water Supply Department, which was the Class-3
post. In fact, the Petitioner was having qualification to be
appointed on Class-3 post and, therefore, it was obligatory on the
part of Respondent No.2 to issue a proper appointment order in
view of the Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994. Yet,
Respondent No.2 had appointed the Petitioner on Class-4 post.
The Petitioner contends that there are vacancies in Class-3 post
with Respondent No.2 and when the mistake was realised by
902 WP2647.2022
-3-
Respondent No.2, a revised order was issued in respect of some
other employees thereby placing them from Class-4 post to Class-
3 post in the year 2007. The Petitioner had then made
representations several times i.e. on 20.07.2005, 28.12.2007,
31.03.2016, 23.02.2017 and 11.09.2018 for issuance of a revised
order in his favour. However, Respondent No.2 did not responded.
The Petitioner has stated that his educational qualification is G.D.
Art, English and Marathi typing as well as MS-CIT, which is the
requisite qualification for Class-3 post. The Petitioner is also
relying upon the Government Resolution dated 30.01.2010,
wherein certain guidelines have been issued in respect of revised
order of appointment i.e. reappointment of the persons, who are
appointed on compassionate ground, on the Class-3 post from
Class-4 post. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Seema Gaikwad holding
for Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, who
has taken us through the documents produced on record as well
as the various Government Resolutions. She submits that though
there is availability of post in Class-3 and the Petitioner is having
requisite qualification yet Respondent No.2 is not adhered to the
Government Resolutions.
902 WP2647.2022
-4-
4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that
the Petitioner has been given time bound pay scale as there is a
post on promotion of Mukadam that is available for the post of
Coolie. The Petitioner received the benefits under the said order
and now he cannot seek the appointment as prayed and at the
most Respondent No.2 be directed to decide the representation
that has been submitted by the Petitioner in view of prayer
Clause “C”.
5. It will not be out of place to mention here that after
hearing both sides, we had directed the learned counsel for
Respondent No.2 to get telephonic information in respect of
availability of the post under Class-3 with Respondent No.2.
Thereupon, upon instructions, he makes a statement that there
are vacant posts available with Respondent No.2 in Class-3.
6. Here it is to be noted that there is no dispute as
regards the fact that after the Petitioner’s father had retired on
the medical ground the Petitioner came to be appointed on
compassionate ground under order dated 05.07.2005. The copy
of the appointment order has been produced. The said
appointment was in view of the Government Resolution dated
902 WP2647.2022
-5-
26.10.1994. Annexure “A” to the said Government Resolution
laid down the criteria and the procedure for appointing a relative
of the government employee on compassionate basis, which
includes the retirement on medical ground. Now, it is to be noted
that the said appointment of the Petitioner was on the post of
Coolie, which is a Class-4 post. The Petitioner appears to have
accepted the same at that time, though in clause 4 of the said
Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994, it has been specifically
stated that such a relative has to be given appointment on
compassionate ground taking into consideration his educational
qualification and age, which was the requisite qualification for
Group-C and Group-D i.e. Class-3 and Class-4. Immediately after
the appointment order dated 05.07.2005, an application came to
be filed by the present Petitioner on 20.07.2005, disclosing that
as per his application dated 06.02.2004, he has mentioned his
qualification and as per Government Resolution dated
26.10.1994, he should be given appointment in Class-3 and,
thereafter, he had prayed for a revised order. Thereafter, again
on 28.12.2007, it appears that he had made similar
representation. Those applications were never considered and he
continued to serve as Coolie in Respondent No.2.
902 WP2647.2022
-6-
7. The next document on which the Petitioner is relying
is his representation dated 31.03.2016, which is the similar
representation and, thereafter, on 23.02.2017, he was seeking
the revised order by appointing him to Class-3 post. Again, on
11.09.2018, he has given a detailed representation by annexing
the different Government Resolutions. He then stated in the
representation that he has been asked to do the work which was
assigned to the post of Class-3. It appears that even this detailed
representation has fallen on the deaf ears. There are copies of the
orders passed by Respondent No.2 in respect of the present
Petitioner, which would show that he was assigned with the work
which can be assigned to Class-3, however, he continued to be on
the pay scale of Class-4. Now, it has been submitted on behalf of
Respondent No.2 that they were the temporary orders.
8. The Government Resolution dated 30.01.2010 makes
a provision for issuing a revised order i.e. reappointment of the
persons from Class-4 to Class-3 in respect of those persons
appointed on the compassionate ground. It is stated in the
Government Resolution that it has been noticed that in
appointment orders on compassionate ground issued for Class-4
post it was necessary to mention that such person would be
902 WP2647.2022
-7-
accommodated on the post of Group-C i.e. Class-3 as per the
educational qualification upon the availability of such post. When
this condition or stipulation was not mentioned there are certain
candidates who have been deprived of the right to be appointed
on Class-3 though such post was then available. By this
Government Resolution it was made mandatory to give such
stipulation in the initial appointment and put the responsibility of
the same on the appointing authority to mention such stipulation
and also gave green signal for issuance of the revised orders.
Now, the Petitioner is taking help of this Government Resolution.
He has also placed on record the revised orders of certain other
candidates from Class-4 post, who have been given revised orders
on Class-3 post, however, he has been kept away from the said
benefit.
9. Taking into consideration all these documents and
Government Resolutions, we hold that the Petitioner was entitled
to be appointed on Class-3 post considering his educational
qualification. Though the Petitioner has approached this court
belatedly yet his right cannot be taken away on any other ground
as he was continuously making representations and those
representations were never taken cognizance of. Therefore, we
902 WP2647.2022
-8-
allow the Writ Petition and direct Respondent No.2 to issue
revised appointment order to the Petitioner on the vacant post of
Class-3 in Respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation considering
his present educational qualification and such order to be passed
within a period of fifteen (15) days from today.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
marathe
Checking your session…