DIGAMBAR LIMBAJI SURYAWANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:46474-DB

                                           1

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                           WRIT PETITION NO.998 OF 2026

             Digambar S/o. Limbaji Suryawanshi           …       PETITIONER

                         VERSUS
        1.   The State of Maharashtra,
             through its Secretary,
             Department of Village Development,
             Mantralaya, Mumbai.

        2.   District Collector,
             Latur.
        3.   The Chief Executive Officer,
             Zilla Parishad,
             Latur.
        4.   Executive Engineer,
             Department of Rural Water Supply,
             Zilla Parishad, Latur.                     …    RESPONDENTS
                                          …

                 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Mayur M. Subhedar
                AGPs for Respondents No.1 and 2 : Ms. Neha B. Kamble
               Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 : Mr. U.B. Bondar
                                           …

                    CORAM              : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
                                         ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                    Reserved on        : 10.09.2026
                    Pronounced on : 05.10.2026


        JUDGMENT (PER: ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :

        1.    Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

        parties, the petition is finally heard at the stage of admission.
                                   2

2.    The petitioner before this Court is a legal heir of deceased Zilla

Parishad Employee, he seeks to challenge the action of Zilla Parishad

thereby refusing to consider his claim for compassionate appointment on

the ground that, the salary of the deceased employee was paid from self-

generated funds of the Zilla Parishads and not from Government funds.

3.    The core question that falls for consideration in this Writ Petition is,

whether the scheme for compassionate appointment is applicable to a

permanent employee on the establishment of the Zilla Parishad, who is

paid from the self-generated funds of the Zilla Parishad ?

Factual Matrix : -

i)    The petitioner’s father was initially appointed with Respondent No.4

      Department, which falls under Respondent No. 3 - Zilla Parishad, on

      a temporary basis to the post of Hand Pump Helper. His service was

      thereafter regularized by Respondent No. 3, however, he expired

      while in service.

ii)   Upon death of petitioner’s father, he made application to

      Respondent No. 3 seeking appointment on compassionate ground.

      Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.3 placed him on the waiting list.

iii) Respondent No. 3 published another waiting list of eligible

      candidates for compassionate appointment. However, name of the

      petitioner was found in a separate chart prepared in respect of
                                  3

     candidates whose fathers were working on posts maintained from

     the self-generated funds of Respondent No. 3 - Zilla Parishad.

iv) The petitioner, therefore, made representation, thereby requesting

     Respondent No. 3 to consider his claim for appointment on

     compassionate ground.

v)   Respondent No. 3, however, relying upon the Government

     Resolution dated 31.07.2025, by which the State Government

     declared that the legal heirs of deceased employee who was

     working on posts maintained from the self-generated funds of the

     Zilla Parishad would not be entitled to the benefit of the scheme for

     compassionate appointment, rejected the petitioner’s claim. The

     petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court.


4.     Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the

petitioner’s father was treated as regular employee of the Zilla Parishad,

his case could not have been placed in a separate category of employees

whose salaries were paid from the self-generated funds/income of the

Zilla Parishad. He submits that the approach of Zilla Parishad, thereby

depriving the petitioner from claiming compassionate appointment only

on that ground is therefore unsustainable. In support of his submission

he has relied on the decision of this Court, in Writ Petition No.9119 of
                                   4

 2021, in the case of Amol Sahebrao Suryawanshi Vs. State of

 Maharashtra and others, along with connected Writ Petitions, decided

 on 20-08-2022.

 5.    Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishad, by

 heavily relying upon the Government Resolution dated 31.07.2025,

 submitted that, as per the audit report of the Local Fund Audit

 Department, the dependents of employees whose salaries were paid

 from the self-generated funds of the Zilla Parishad, were not eligible for

 appointment on compassionate grounds, as the concerned scheme is not

 applicable to such category of employees. It is, therefore, urged that

 the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

 6.    We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel

 appearing for the Zilla Parishad, learned AGP, and have perused the

 record.

 7.    The issue involved in this Writ Petition is no longer res integra in

 view of ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Amol Sahebrao

 Suryawanshi (supra), wherein this Court held thus:

“19. In the case of Ashish Vinayak Kute (supra), the deceased employee
     was working on the post of Hand Pump Electrician, which was
     created by the Zilla Parishad by paying salaries and other benefits
     through its maintenance and repairs fund. Relying on the case of
     another employee whose salary was also paid from maintenance
     and repairs fund of the Zilla Parishad and whose ward was granted
     compassionate appointment, this Court allowed the writ petition
                                   5

    directing consideration of the case of the petitioner therein for
    compassionate appointment. It appears that despite the order dated
    02.07.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 5801 of 2012, the Zilla
    Parishad Aurangabad once again rejected the case of the petitioner
    therein for compassionate appointment on the ground that his
    father was not a permanent employee. Therfore, this Court was
    again required to pass an order dated 04.12.2015 in Writ Petition
    No. 5910 of 2014 holding that it was not open for the Zilla Parishad
    to come to the conclusion that the employee was not permanent on
    account of the previous order dated 02.07.2013. It was therefore
    directed to treat the deceased employee as permanent for the
    purpose of consideration of the case for compassionate
    appointment.

20. In the case of Bhakti Nandkumar Jagdale (supra), the application for
     compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the
     salary of the deceased employee was paid from Zilla Parishad funds
     and not from the Government funds. By relying on various orders
     previously passed, this Court allowed the petition directing
     consideration of the case for compassionate appointment by
     treating the deceased employee as permanent. Similar orders are
     also passed in the case of Shubham Papanna Darelu Vs. The State
     of Maharashtra dated 18.04.2016 in Writ Petition No. 10296 of
     2015.

21. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the respondent Zilla
    Parishad erred in rejecting the case of the petitioners for
    compassionate appointment solely on the ground that the salary of
    the deceased employee was being paid through the self generated
    funds/income of the Zilla Parishad. We hold that even the
    employees who were being paid initially from self generated
    funds/income of the Zilla Parishad and later on conferred
    permanent status and brought on permanent establishment of the
    Zilla Parishad are also required to be treated as covered in the
    scheme for compassionate appointment.

22. Consequently, we allow the present petitions and direct the
    respondent/Zilla Parishad to consider the cases of the petitioners
    for compassionate appointments on their own merits within a
    period of three (03) months from today and communicate orders
    on the applications to the respective petitioners.”
                                          6

8.          In the light of aforesaid observations of this Court, we are of the

view that the stand taken by the respondent- Zilla Parishad that, the

deceased employee was working on the post maintained from self-

generated funds and, therefore, his legal heir is not entitled to

compassionate appointment, is arbitrary and unreasonable. We thus

find that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate

ground deserves to be considered. In this view of the matter, the Writ

Petition deserve to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following order:

                                   ORDER

     I.      The Writ Petition is allowed.

 II.         The Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to consider the case

             of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on its own

             merits within a period of three months from the date of

             communication of this order and communicate the order

             passed on his application.

 III. Rule is thus made absolute in the above terms, with no order

             as to costs.



 (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)                     (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)


          habeeb/