Dismissed¶10

The Chief Officer Rahuri Municipal Council v. Chief Secretary Ahmednagar District Nagarpalika Kamgar Union and Others

Bombay HC23 Mar 2026WP/449/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Aurangabad Bench, Bombay High Court; S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.; 23 March 2026; Writ Petition No. 449 of 2026; Chief Officer, Rahuri Municipal Council v. Ahmednagar District Nagarpalika Kamgar Union and others. Keywords: compassionate appointment; death in service; driver; district-wise waiting list; Class-III cadre; exhaustion of waiting list; ULP complaint; unfair labour practice; Item Nos.5, 9, 10 Schedule IV; MRTU & PULP Act 1971; Industrial Court Ahmednagar; Article 227; evasive written statement; Dayanand Sharad Dicholkar v. State of Goa 2025 (2) Mh.L.J. 435 distinguished; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The entitlement of respondent no.3 to appointment on compassionate ground is not disputed by the municipal council. ¶5

The Chief Officer Rahuri Municipal Council vs Chief… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned Industrial Court order directing compassionate appointment of respondent no.3 calls for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, given the petitioner's stand that the district-wise waiting list for compassionate appointment had first to be exhausted. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

The Dayanand precedent does not assist the petitioner: in that case compassionate appointment was sought dehors waiting-list seniority on clear evidence, whereas here the petitioner came with no specific pleading; accordingly that case is distinguished.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The entitlement of respondent no.3 to appointment on compassionate ground is not disputed by the municipal council.

¶5

Key takeaways

Except for an evasive defence, the petitioner offered no pleading as to how many posts are available on the municipal council establishment and how many persons are waiting for appointment on compassionate ground.ratio¶5
The Industrial Court rightly observed that the petitioner brought no reason on record for not giving appointment to respondent no.3, although his name was included in the list of candidates waiting for appointment since 2016.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J. — Writ Petition No. 449 of 2026 (decided 23.03.2026): Compassionate appointment — municipal council's Article 227 challenge to Industrial Court direction fails. The Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, in Complaint (ULP) No.05/2019 (under Item Nos.5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act 1971) had directed the Chief Officer, Rahuri Municipal Council to appoint respondent no.3 — son of Late Annasaheb Baburao Pawar, a council driver who died in a road accident on 15.10.2013 — on compassionate ground within three months, with a compliance report by end of January 2026. Held: respondent no.3's entitlement was undisputed and his name stood in the district-wise Class-III waiting list since 2016; the council's written statement was evasive, pleading neither available posts nor waiting candidates; its 11.03.2024 list placing him at Serial No.3 was never proved before the Industrial Court; Dayanand Sharad Dicholkar v. State of Goa, 2025 (2) Mh.L.J. 435, distinguished — there appointment was sought dehors waiting-list seniority on clear evidence. Impugned order not faulted; writ petition rejected.

¶1

8-wp-449-2026.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

2026:BHC-AUG:14421

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 449 OF 2026

¶6

The Chief Officer Rahuri Municipal Council VERSUS

¶7

Chief Secretary Ahmednagar District Nagarpalika Kamgar Union And Others

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Naiknavare Ramesh Vitthal Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Barde Parag Vijay

¶9

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

¶10

DATED : MARCH 23, 2026

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

Present petition takes exception to order dated 16.10.2025 passed by Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No.05/2019, whereby petitioner is directed to appoint respondent no.3 on compassionate ground within a period of three months from date of order. The petitioner is further directed to send compliance report of such appointment of respondent no.3 by end of January 2026.

¶13

The father of respondent no.3, Late Annasaheb Baburao Pawar was employed as driver with petitioner/municipal council. On 15.10.2013, he died in road accident. Respondent no.2, who is widow of deceased submitted her application for appointment of respondent no.3/son on compassionate ground. In the year 2016, name of respondent no.3 was included in district-wise waiting list of candidates in Class-III category. Despite of several representations

¶14

8-wp-449-2026.odt

¶15

(2)

¶16

made by respondent, appointment was not given. Ultimately, Complaint (ULP) No.05/2019 was filed in Industrial Court at Ahmednagar seeking declaration of unfair labour practices against petitioner/municipal council under Item Nos.5, 9 and 10 of ScheduleIV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (‘MRTU & PULP Act’ for short). The petitioner/municipal council filed written statement and opposed complaint. The Industrial Court recorded evidence of respective parties and finally passed impugned order.

¶17

Mr. Naiknavare, learned advocate appearing for petitioner/municipal council submits that district-wise seniority list is maintained for purpose of appointment on compassionate ground on establishment of municipal council. Unless waiting list is exhausted, there was no reason to appoint respondent no.3 on establishment of municipal council. In support of his submissions, he relies upon observations of this Court in case of Dayanand Sharad Dicholkar Vs.

¶18

State of Goa and Others reported in 2025 (2) Mh.L.J. 435 and submits that claim of respondent seeking compassionate appointment cannot be considered outside terms of rules and regulations issued for said purpose.

¶19

Per contra, Mr. Barde, learned advocate appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3 invites attention of this Court to pleadings in written statement and submits that evasive reply was filed which sans

¶20

8-wp-449-2026.odt

¶21

(3)

¶22

necessary details regarding preparation of waiting list and available vacancies.

¶23

Having considered submissions advanced by learned advocates appearing for respective counsels and reasons as recorded by Industrial Court in impugned order, it can be observed that there is no dispute that father of respondent no.3 was in service with municipal council and he died during course of such employment. The entitlement of respondent no.3 for appointment on compassionate ground is also not disputed by municipal council. Perusal of written statement would show that except evasive defence, there is no pleading as to how many posts are available on establishment of municipal council and how many persons are waiting for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶24

The Industrial Court in para 16 of judgment observed that since 2016, many posts are filled on establishment of municipal council and there are many vacancies in Class-III cadre on account of retirement or death of employees. The Industrial Court has rightly observed that petitioner has not brought on record any reason for not giving appointment to respondent no.3, although his name is included in list of candidates waiting for appointment since 2016.

¶25

Mr. Naiknavare endeavours to contend that name of respondent no.3 stands at Serial No.3 in waiting list as on 11.03.2024. However, there is nothing on record to show that said

¶26

8-wp-449-2026.odt

¶27

(4)

¶28

list was brought before Industrial Court and proved in accordance with law. Perusal of written statement nowhere refers about any waiting list candidates above name of respondent no.3.

¶29

Mr. Naiknavare seeks to rely upon observations of this Court in case of Dayanand (supra). However, in that case, compassionate appointment was sought dehors seniority of waiting list candidates. There was clear evidence in that regard. In that contingency, this Court laid down that Court cannot compel respondents to deviate from established guidelines for compassionate appointments.

¶30

In present case, petitioner has not come with specific pleading. There is nothing on record to show that how many vacancies occurred after 2016 on account of death/retirement of employee in Class-III cadre. It is also not brought on record that how many persons have been appointed against such vacancies. Even there is nothing to show that any previous claim for compassionate appointment is pending. In aforesaid background, impugned order cannot be faulted. Hence, no case is made out to cause interference in impugned order under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

¶31

In result, writ petition stands rejected.

¶32

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

¶33

Mujaheed//

The Chief Officer Rahuri Municipal Council v. Chief Secretary Ahmednagar District Nagarpalika Kamgar Union and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Officer Rahuri Municipal Council v. Chief Secretary Ahmednagar District Nagarpalika Kamgar Union and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rambhaji Namdeo Abhale vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Neminath Kanode and Another vs the State of Maharashtra through Its District Collector and Others

Subhadrabai Digambar Giri vs Niranjan Santosh Bharati and Others

Dnyaneshwar Narayan Jadhav vs Rupali Dyaneshwar Jadhav

Abdul Karim Chandsaheb Yele Patel vs the Registrar General of Money Lnding or Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar and Others

Prayagbai Deorao Gaikwad vs Kakasaheb Piraji Thombare Deceased Thr Lr Rukmanbai Kakasaheb Thombre and Others