Kiran Ashok BoradeversusMunicipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

                                                                                45 WP 8932 OF 2026.DOC



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 8932 OF 2026

                Mr. Kiran Ashok Borade                                             ...Petitioner
                      Versus
                Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
                Through the Municipal Commissioner,
                Mumbai & Ors.                                                      ...Respondents
                                                  _______
                Mr. Siddharth Jha a/w. Mr. Chetan Gogawale i/b. M/s. Law Global, Advocate for
                the Petitioner.

                Mr. Santosh Parad, Advocate for Respondent – BMC.
                Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for Respondent–State.
                                                        _______

                                              CORAM:          G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                              DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                                              DATE:           29th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                P.C.

                1.        This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking

                the following relief:

                                “a. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or
                                direction, directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to accept, register and
                                objectively consider the Petitioner's fresh representation/application
                                for appointment on preferential basis under the Government
                                Resolution   dated   24.02.2023,     read   with     the    Government
                                communication/notification dated 12.07.2024 and the order dated
RAJESHRI                        08.01.2025 passed by the Aurangabad Bench of this Hon'ble Court, in
PRAKASH
AHER
Digitally signed by
                                accordance with law and on its own merits by passing a reasoned and
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
AHER
Date: 2026.10.06
11:19:55 +0530
                                speaking order within six weeks.


                                                     Page 1 of 3
                Rajeshri Aher
                                                                     45 WP 8932 OF 2026.DOC



         b.      Direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 not to reject the Petitioner's claim at
         the threshold merely on the basis of the formal designation of the Petitioner's
         father as "Labourer", without first verifying whether the Petitioner's father
         was substantially attached to, and/or was performing duties connected with,
         drainage, sewerage, gutter cleaning, chamber cleaning, pipeline cleaning,
         removal of blockages, house-gully cleaning and allied sanitation/conservancy
         work;
         c.      Direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to specifically consider the salary
         slips/service records showing the Petitioner's father's posting/section as
         "SEW B", the representation/application submitted by the Petitioner's father
         recording his drainage/sewerage-related duties, and all other documents
         relied upon by the Petitioner, before arriving at any decision on the
         Petitioner's claim;
         d.      Direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to consider the Petitioner's claim in
         light of the subsequent policy framework, namely the Government
         Resolution dated 24.02.2023, which has been recognised by the Aurangabad
         Bench of this Hon'ble Court as the latest policy governing the field and
         requiring objective scrutiny of individual claims;
         e.      Direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to grant the Petitioner a reasonable
         opportunity of personal hearing and an opportunity to submit all relevant
         documents, explanations, records and supporting material before deciding
         the Petitioner's claim;
         f.      Direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to pass a reasoned and speaking order
         on the Petitioner's fresh representation/application within a period of six
         weeks from the date of submission of the representation and/or from the date
         of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court, whichever is later;
         g.      Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, direct
         Respondent      Nos.      1   to   4        to   accept   the   Petitioner's   fresh
         representation/application along with all supporting documents and to keep
         the same pending or process the same subject to the outcome of the present
         Petition;


                                       Page 2 of 3
Rajeshri Aher
                                                                      45 WP 8932 OF 2026.DOC



                 h.         ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses above be granted;
                 i.         any other and further order and/or direction be granted as the
                 nature and circumstances of the case may require.”


2.        Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although there is a history of

litigation in the Petitioner's case, there is, however, a policy/circular issued by the

Municipal Corporation, of which the Petitioner can take benefit. On the basis

thereof, the Petitioner intends to make an application for appointment to the

appropriate post.

3.        If    that   be     so,   we   permit    the   Petitioner   to   make   such   an

application/representation.

4.        If the policy/circular permits the Petitioner to claim such appointment, such

representation/application, if made, be considered in accordance with law. All

contentions of the parties in respect of the specific case are kept open.

5.        Needless to state that any decision that is taken ought not to be influenced

by the previous litigation and the orders passed in the said litigation.

6.        In the event the claim of the Petitioner is not part of the subject matter of

the said proceeding, he may make an independent, fresh claim. If it is the subject

matter of earlier litigation, then we have clarified the position, as aforesaid.

7.        If the application/representation is made within two weeks from today, the

same be considered and decided within four weeks thereafter by the Designated

Officer of the Municipal Corporation. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.




(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)                                         (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)


                                         Page 3 of 3
Rajeshri Aher