Order wp 3710.2026.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3710 OF 2026 [Sahil Subhash Chavhan vs. Municipal Council, Yavatmal through its Chief Officer] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V. D. Darne, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : 23-09-2026. On 24-8-2026, following order was passed. “Heard for some time. 2. This is a case where the petitioner is trying to mislead the Court. We say so for following reasons: 3. On 25.06.2026, the following order was passed: “1. Heard. 2. This is yet another case where the law, which is otherwise well- settled, has been not implemented/acted upon by the respondent-Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Yavatmal. 3. To be heard along with Writ Petition No. 3174 of 2025 and other connected matters. 4. The respondent shall remain present, either personally or through Video Conferencing, on that day. 5. List on 15.07.2026” 4. As could be seen, we have, after hearing the petitioner, observed, as we were made to believe that respondent – Municipal Council, Yavatmal has not acted in terms of the settled principles of law. The reliance was placed on the judgment of Full 2026:BHC-NAG:12612-DB Order wp 3710.2026.odt 2 Bench of this Court Kalpana wd/o Vilas Taram and anr. .Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors; [2024 (4) Mh.L.J.312], wherein the issue of substitution of name of the legal representative mentioned in the Government Resolution (“GR”) before the Supreme Court, was dealt with. It was observed that substitution of name of the legal representative is permissible once the previous applicant claiming compassionate appointment has attained the age of 45 years. 5. In response to our order, the Municipal Council invited our attention to the judgment as well as the GR dated 17.07.2025, which petitioner is relying upon. 6. We found that the petitioner is grandson of the deceased employee. We further found that under the GR, in the definition of Legal Representatives of the deceased, category of grandson is not included. We have accordingly observed in order dated 15.07.2026 that for no valid reason, the presence of Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Yavatmal was sought. In response, Mr. A. C. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for petitioner, sought time to go through judgment saying that he believes that grandson of deceased will be entitled for compassionate appointment and should be taken into consideration. 7. Accordingly, we have heard Mr. Dharmadhikari today. He has invited our attention to the provisions of the GR which petitioner himself is relying on. The provision indicates that the GR is not applicable to semi Government offices, local bodies, etc. Unless adopted by the respondent - Municipal Council. Accordingly, he submits that it is not known whether the GR under question is adopted by the respondent - Municipal Council. 8. We are surprised to hear the stand taken by the petitioner. The petitioner himself has made an application to consider his candidature for substitution of name in terms of aforesaid GR which would mean that he has verified that the GR is applicable. To change a stand at this stage would Order wp 3710.2026.odt 3 only indicate that petitioner is trying to divert the attention. 9. Be that as it may, we then inquired with petitioner's counsel as to on what basis the prayer will be pressed in service. The learned counsel submits that it will be on the basis of Kalpana Taram’s case. We then inquired as to whether petitioner's case is covered by the GR referred to in the said decision, the counsel submits that he will have to verify. 10. Thus, the petitioner is now coming up with a case that in Kalpana Taram’s case, the terminology, Legal Representative/heir is used to mean and include in the definition the grandsons. 11. We do not find any substance in this submission. Few lines in the judgment in Kalpana Taram’s case cannot be read in isolation to put forth such an argument. It is well settled that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as of right and secondly, it can only be claimed in terms of the policy decision prevailing at the relevant time. The petitioner will have to make good his modified stand and apprise us as to the provisions under which such an appointment can be or such a prayer could be made. 12. The learned counsel seeks time which we grant. We would, however, like to test bona fides of the petitioner considering the modified stand taken today. The petitioner shall accordingly deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- within seven working days with the Registry of this Court. 13. List in the week commencing 21.09.2026.” 2. The order is self speaking as to how petitioner made an attempt to mislead the Court. The petitioner was accordingly directed to deposit amount of Rs. 25,000/-. He has deposited the said amount. 3. Mr. A. C. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the Order wp 3710.2026.odt 4 petitioner is not willing to pursue the cause because he suffered with major accident and has certain complications. 4. We find this reason for not pursuing the cause to be equally surprising as we have expressed such surprises in our order dated 24-8-2026 more particularly, in absence of any documentary evidence in support. The real reason appears to be the contents of previous order. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner is not willing to pursue the cause. The petition is accordingly dismissed with cost. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the petitioner will be treated as costs while dismissing the petition, which shall be deposited by the Registry in the Account of High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) wasnik Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 23/09/2026 18:28:25