Anil S/O Keshav Yerne and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

12)	Ramesh S/o Shriram Bagmare, Aged about 46 years, Occ.-Service,
13)	Mohan S/o Hari Meshram, Aged about 59 years, Occ.-Service, All are office of Nagar Parishad, Nagbhid, Tah. Nagbhid, District – Chandrapur. …. PETITIONERS
	//VERSUS //
1)	The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Ministry at Mumbai-400032.
2)	Deputy Director, Urban Development Administration, Directorate, 3^rdFloor, Sir, Pachkhanwala Marg, Worli, Mumbai-440030.
3)	The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Old Secretariat, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001.
4)	The Collector, Chandrapur, Collectorate Compound, Chandrapur, Tah. and District – Chandrapur.
5)	Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Nagbhid, Tah. Nagbhid, District – Chandrapur. ….RESPONDENTS

¶20

3 J-WP No.2626.2024.odt

¶21

Judgment

¶22

Mr. Indrajit G. Meshram, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶23

Mrs. S. S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Atul Mahajan, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶24

CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2025.

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per : M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶26

Heard. Rule . Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶27

Matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by consent of the parties and at the request of parties.

¶28

By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners seeking absorption of their services on the establishment of Municipal Council, Nagbhid – Respondent No.5.

¶29

According to the Petitioners, they were employees of the Grampanchayat, which was merged in the Municipal Council, Nagbhid on 11/04/2016. They claimed that in view of the Government Resolution dated 19/01/2017, it was obligatory for the Respondent No.5 - Municipal Council, Nagbhid to frame

¶30

4 J-WP No.2626.2024.odt

¶31

Judgment

¶32

staffing pattern and absorb the services of the Petitioners. Instead of merging of Grampanchayat with Respondent No.5 - Municipal Council, Nagbhid, the services of the Petitioners are not taken on the establishment of the Respondent No.5 - Municipal Council, Nagbhid, though there exists vacancies to that effect.

¶33

On perusal of the Government Resolution dated 19/01/2017, it is clear that the vacancies newly created are required to be filled in by the permanent employees of Grampanchayat before the date of proclamation. The Petitioners failed to demonstrate that there are vacancies available to absorb the daily-wager employees.

¶34

The learned Assistant Government Pleader drawn our attention to Clause-3 of the Government Resolution dated 19/01/2017, by which, it appears that the proposal by the Grampanchayat of the employees to be absorbed is required to be submitted to the Collector before the date of proclamation. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is a Resolution passed by the Grampanchayat for absorption of daily-

¶35

5 J-WP No.2626.2024.odt

¶36

Judgment

¶37

wagers, however, the said proposal is of dated 20/02/2017, whereas the proclamation is issued on 15/06/2015. As such, there is no entitlement to the Petitioners who were admittedly daily-wagers to absorb in the Municipal Council, Nagbhid.

¶38

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners drawn our attention to Appendix-IV to Section 493, in para 5, of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, provides continuation of appointments, taxes, budget estimates, assessments, etc., however, this would apply to the permanent employees, who are receiving regular salary and allowances. It is not applicable in the present set of fact.

¶39

The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5 – Municipal Council, Nagbhid submitted that if the Government framed any policy, there are no objection for absorption of the daily-wager employees. However, at present, there is no such policy nor sanctioned post available with the Municipal Council, Nagbhid to absorb the daily-wagers. However, if in future any such vacancies are arise, the Government may consider the claim of the present Petitioners as per provisions of law.

¶40

6 J-WP No.2626.2024.odt

¶41

Judgment

¶42

Accordingly, the Petition is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition stands dismissed . No order as to

¶43

costs.

¶44

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J. )

¶45

(SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶46

Kirtak

Anil S/O Keshav Yerne and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil S/O Keshav Yerne and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishrat Fatema Shaikh Ahemad vs the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

Saurabh S/O Hiraman Dadmal vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli Thr. Chairman and Others

Anjali D/O Shankar Kalmeghe, Thr. Natural Guardian Father, Shankar S/O Bajirao Kalmeghe vs the Vice-Chairman/Member-Secretary, S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur and Ors.

Govind S/O Sadashiv Meshram Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, School and Education Department, Mumbai and Others

Deorao Balu Rathod vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana and Others

Kaliram S/O. Budhaji Usendi and Another vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Dept. of Rural Development, Mumbai and Ors.