Bombay High Court
KAILAS PITAMBAR KOLIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to be reappointed to a Class‑3 post and the municipal corporation must issue the revised appointment order within fifteen days.
Summary
The petitioner, Kailas Pitambar Koli, was initially appointed on compassionate grounds as a Watchman (Class‑4) in Jalgaon Municipal Corporation in 2005, despite possessing qualifications for a Class‑3 post. He repeatedly submitted representations between 2007 and 2021 requesting a revised appointment to Class‑3, citing Government Resolutions dated 26‑Oct‑1994 and 30‑Jan‑2010 which mandate such re‑appointments when vacancies exist. The municipal corporation acknowledged vacancies in Class‑3 but failed to act on his representations. The Court examined the statutory guidelines and the petitioner’s continuous requests, finding that his right to a Class‑3 appointment could not be denied due to delay. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the corporation to issue a revised appointment order for the vacant Class‑3 post within fifteen days.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a revised appointment to a Class‑3 post under the Government Resolutions of 26‑Oct‑1994 and 30‑Jan‑2010.
- Whether the municipal corporation is obligated to issue the revised appointment order despite the petitioner's delayed filing.
- Whether the petitioner’s continuous representations create a legal right to re‑appointment.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- revised appointment order
- Class‑3
- Class‑4
- government resolution
- municipal corporation
- service law
- writ petition
- employment grievance
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:23998-DB
903 WP2648.2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2648 OF 2022
. KAILAS PITAMBAR KOLI,
Age: 38 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Near Bansi Kirana, Walmik Nagar,
Asoda Road, 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
903 WP2648.2022
-2-
order thereby placing the Petitioner on the post of Class-3 from
Class-4 post in view of the Government Resolution dated
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 10.03.2005,
on the post of Watchman 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 expired during service
with Respondent No.2. The petitioner’s father was working on the
post of Fitter 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.
903 WP2648.2022
-3-
The Petitioner contends that there are vacancies in Class-3 post
with Respondent No.2 and when the mistake was realised by
Respondent No.2, revised orders were 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 17.05.2007, 29.11.2007,
14.01.2009, 09.04.2010, 05.05.2010, 13.12.2018, 24.01.2019,
11.09.2019, 16.11.2019, 15.01.2020 and 17.05.2021 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 B.A. (Mass Communication
Journalism), MS-CIT as well as MS Office Computer Course, 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
903 WP2648.2022
-4-
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 has not adhered to the
Government Resolutions.
4. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 has
countered the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for
Respondent No.2 and submits that 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 Advocate 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 expired
during service with Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner came to
be appointed on compassionate ground under order dated
10.03.2005. The copy of the appointment order has been
903 WP2648.2022
-5-
produced. The said appointment was in view of the Government
Resolution dated 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 demise of employee during
service. Now, it is to be noted that the said appointment of the
Petitioner was on the post of Watchman, which is a Class-4 post.
The Petitioner appears to have accepted the same at that time,
though in clause 4 of Annexure “A” to 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. Thereafter, an application came to be
filed by the present Petitioner on 29.11.2007, disclosing his
qualification and as per Government Resolution dated
26.10.1994, he should be given appointment in Class-3 and,
therefore, he had prayed for a revised order. Thereafter, again on
09.04.2010 and 05.05.2010, it appears that he had made similar
representations. Those applications were never considered and
he continued to serve as Watchman in Respondent No.2
Municipal Corporation.
903 WP2648.2022
-6-
7. The next documents on which the Petitioner is relying
is his representations dated 13.12.2018 and 24.01.2019,
wherein he was seeking the revised order by appointing him to
Class-3 post. Again, on 11.09.2019, 16.11.2019 and 15.01.2020
he has given detailed reminders / representations by annexing
the different Government Resolutions. In the representation
dated 17.05.2021, he stated therein 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 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
903 WP2648.2022
-7-
post it was necessary to mention that such person would be
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
903 WP2648.2022
-8-
representations were never taken cognizance of. Therefore, we
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…