Bombay High Court
MUSTER ASSISTANT KARAMCHARI SANGHATNAversusBEED ZILLA PARISHAD THROUGH ITS CEO
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the High Court is not the appropriate forum; the petitioner must approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal or the correct bench.
Summary
The petitioner, Muster Assistant Karamchari Sanghatna, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging actions of multiple Zilla Parishads across Maharashtra. The Court examined whether the High Court was the appropriate forum, noting a prior order that such disputes involving state employees should be addressed before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. It also considered the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court’s Aurangabad and Nagpur benches, given the respondents were located in different districts. The Court held that the petition was improperly filed and directed the petitioner to pursue the matter before the appropriate administrative tribunal or the correct bench of the High Court. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without any order on the merits, and the accompanying interim application was also dismissed. The parties' contentions were left open for future proceedings in the proper forum.
Issues considered
- Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition filed by state employees against Zilla Parishads.
- Whether the appropriate forum for the grievance is the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
- Whether the petition should be filed before the geographically correct bench of the High Court.
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- writ petition
- Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
- state employees
- Zilla Parishad
- high court procedural law
- forum non conveniens
Judgment
11_WP_3089_2024.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3089 OF 2024
Muster Assistant Karamchari Sanghatna ...Petitioner
Versus
Beed Zilla Parishad through its CEO ...Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4857 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3089 OF 2024
Muster Assistant Karamchari Sanghatna ...Applicant
Versus
Beed Zilla Parishad through its CEO ...Respondent
_______
Mr. Rahul Kamerkar a/w Aparajita R. Jha, for Petitioner.
Mr. Suhas R. Shirsath for Respondent No.1.
Mr. R.K. Ingole a/w S.A. Mulla for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Onkar Wable, for Respondent Nos.3 and 9.
Ms. Gauri Raghuwanshi, for Respondent No.5 – Dhule Zilla Parishad.
Mr. Sumit Kate i/by Dr. Uday Warunjikar, for Respondent No.6.
Mr. Sahil M. Bhangde a/w Rushikesh Bhadre for Respondent No.10.
Mr. Sunil Shinde, for Respondent No.11.
Mr. P.P. Kakde, Addl. GP a/w S.R. Crasto, AGP, for Respondent – State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 09th SEPTEMBER 2026
Page 1 of 3
Prasad
11_WP_3089_2024.DOC
P.C.
1. We are not satisfied with the frame of the petition, more particularly
considering the order dated 19.01.2024 passed on the present Petition by a Co-
ordinate bench of this Court, wherein the Division Bench has clearly observed that
the Petitioner has sought reliefs against the Respondents, who are State authorities
and that, if that be so, the Writ Petition would pertain to the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal. Nonetheless, the present petition has been filed in respect
of employees who are directly employed by the State Government. For them, the
appropriate remedy would be to approach the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, in view of the said order passed by the Division Bench in the petition of
the Petitioner.
2. We also find something very peculiar that there are different Zilla Parishads,
namely, Beed, Nanded, Latur, Dharashiv, Dhule, Satara, Ahmednagar, Gondia,
Chandrapur, Amravati, Washim (Respondent Nos.1 to 11), against whom the
present petition has been filed at the Principal Seat. Considering the division of the
judicial work of the High Court as per the geographical jurisdiction of the
Aurangabad Bench and Nagpur Bench, the cause of action which has accrued
within the territorial jurisdiction of the different Benches of this Court ought to be
pursued before the appropriate Bench of this Court, unless there is a transfer of the
proceeding from the Benches to the principal seat or vice versa, if so directed by the
Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
3. In this view of the matter, we are of the clear opinion that the Petitioner
and/or the individual employees are required to take appropriate proceedings,
Page 2 of 3
Prasad
11_WP_3089_2024.DOC
which would be maintainable before the appropriate forums.
4. With the aforesaid observations, we dispose of this petition with liberty to
the Petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum.
5. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
6. Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
7. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, the Interim Application would also
not survive, and would stand disposed of.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT
Digitally signed by
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT
Date: 2026.09.17
11:31:21 +0530
Page 3 of 3
Prasad
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.