903 WP2648.2022 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2648 OF 2022 . KAILAS PITAMBAR KOLI, Age: 38 Years, Occu. Service, R/o. Near Bansi Kirana, Walmik Nagar, Asoda Road, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon .. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Commissioner, Jalgaon Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon .. Respondents ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Seema Gaikwad h/f. Mr. Ajay G. Talhar AGP for Respondent No.1: Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sandesh R. Patil ... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, JJ. Date : 17.06.2026 PER COURT :- 1. The present petition has been filed for issuance of directions to Respondent No.2 to decide the representation submitted by the Petitioner for seeking revised appointment 2026:BHC-AUG:23998-DB 903 WP2648.2022 -2- order thereby placing the Petitioner on the post of Class-3 from Class-4 post in view of the Government Resolution dated 30.01.2010 within some stipulated period. The another prayer is to direct Respondent No.2 to issue the revised appointment order to the Petitioner on the post of Class-3 in Respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation considering the educational qualification of the Petitioner and to grant all other consequential monetary benefits to the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner has come with a case that he came to be appointed on compassionate ground in Respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation vide appointment order dated 10.03.2005, on the post of Watchman i.e. Class 4 post in the Pay Scale of Rs.2550 -3200. The said compassionate appointment was in view of the fact that the petitioner’s father had expired during service with Respondent No.2. The petitioner’s father was working on the post of Fitter in Water Supply Department, which was the Class-3 post. In fact, the Petitioner was having qualification to be appointed on Class-3 post and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of Respondent No.2 to issue a proper appointment order in view of the Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994. Yet, Respondent No.2 had appointed the Petitioner on Class-4 post. 903 WP2648.2022 -3- The Petitioner contends that there are vacancies in Class-3 post with Respondent No.2 and when the mistake was realised by Respondent No.2, revised orders were issued in respect of some other employees thereby placing them from Class-4 post to Class- 3 post in the year 2007. The Petitioner had then made representations several times i.e. on 17.05.2007, 29.11.2007, 14.01.2009, 09.04.2010, 05.05.2010, 13.12.2018, 24.01.2019, 11.09.2019, 16.11.2019, 15.01.2020 and 17.05.2021 for issuance of a revised order in his favour. However, Respondent No.2 did not responded. The Petitioner has stated that his educational qualification is B.A. (Mass Communication Journalism), MS-CIT as well as MS Office Computer Course, which is the requisite qualification for Class-3 post. The Petitioner is also relying upon the Government Resolution dated 30.01.2010, wherein certain guidelines have been issued in respect of revised order of appointment i.e. reappointment of the persons, who are appointed on compassionate ground, on the Class-3 post from Class-4 post. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Seema Gaikwad holding for Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, who has taken us through the documents produced on record as well 903 WP2648.2022 -4- as the various Government Resolutions. She submits that though there is availability of post in Class-3 and the Petitioner is having requisite qualification yet Respondent No.2 has not adhered to the Government Resolutions. 4. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 has countered the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and submits that at the most Respondent No.2 be directed to decide the representation that has been submitted by the Petitioner in view of prayer Clause “C”. 5. It will not be out of place to mention here that after hearing both sides, we had directed the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 to get telephonic information in respect of availability of the post under Class-3 with Respondent No.2. Thereupon, upon instructions, he makes a statement that there are vacant posts available with Respondent No.2 in Class-3. 6. Here it is to be noted that there is no dispute as regards the fact that after the Petitioner’s father had expired during service with Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner came to be appointed on compassionate ground under order dated 10.03.2005. The copy of the appointment order has been 903 WP2648.2022 -5- produced. The said appointment was in view of the Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994. Annexure “A” to the said Government Resolution laid down the criteria and the procedure for appointing a relative of the government employee on compassionate basis, which includes demise of employee during service. Now, it is to be noted that the said appointment of the Petitioner was on the post of Watchman, which is a Class-4 post. The Petitioner appears to have accepted the same at that time, though in clause 4 of Annexure “A” to the said Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994, it has been specifically stated that such a relative has to be given appointment on compassionate ground taking into consideration his educational qualification and age, which was the requisite qualification for Group-C and Group- D i.e. Class-3 and Class-4. Thereafter, an application came to be filed by the present Petitioner on 29.11.2007, disclosing his qualification and as per Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994, he should be given appointment in Class-3 and, therefore, he had prayed for a revised order. Thereafter, again on 09.04.2010 and 05.05.2010, it appears that he had made similar representations. Those applications were never considered and he continued to serve as Watchman in Respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation. 903 WP2648.2022 -6- 7. The next documents on which the Petitioner is relying is his representations dated 13.12.2018 and 24.01.2019, wherein he was seeking the revised order by appointing him to Class-3 post. Again, on 11.09.2019, 16.11.2019 and 15.01.2020 he has given detailed reminders / representations by annexing the different Government Resolutions. In the representation dated 17.05.2021, he stated therein that he has been asked to do the work which was assigned to the post of Class-3. It appears that even this detailed representation has fallen on deaf ears. There are copies of the orders passed by Respondent No.2 in respect of the present Petitioner, which would show that he was assigned with the work which can be assigned to Class-3, however, he continued to be on the pay scale of Class-4. Now, it has been submitted on behalf of Respondent No.2 that they were the temporary orders. 8. The Government Resolution dated 30.01.2010 makes a provision for issuing a revised order i.e. reappointment of the persons from Class-4 to Class-3 in respect of those persons appointed on the compassionate ground. It is stated in the Government Resolution that it has been noticed that in appointment orders on compassionate ground issued for Class-4 903 WP2648.2022 -7- post it was necessary to mention that such person would be accommodated on the post of Group-C i.e. Class-3 as per the educational qualification upon the availability of such post. When this condition or stipulation was not mentioned there are certain candidates who have been deprived of the right to be appointed on Class-3 though such post was then available. By this Government Resolution it was made mandatory to give such stipulation in the initial appointment and put the responsibility of the same on the appointing authority to mention such stipulation and also gave green signal for issuance of the revised orders. Now, the Petitioner is taking help of this Government Resolution. He has also placed on record the revised orders of certain other candidates from Class-4 post, who have been given revised orders on Class-3 post, however, he has been kept away from the said benefit. 9. Taking into consideration all these documents and Government Resolutions, we hold that the Petitioner was entitled to be appointed on Class-3 post considering his educational qualification. Though the Petitioner has approached this court belatedly yet his right cannot be taken away on any other ground as he was continuously making representations and those 903 WP2648.2022 -8- representations were never taken cognizance of. Therefore, we allow the Writ Petition and direct Respondent No.2 to issue revised appointment order to the Petitioner on the vacant post of Class-3 in Respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation considering his present educational qualification and such order to be passed within a period of fifteen (15) days from today. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.) marathe