The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition, seeking a declaration as surplus, grant of permanency, pensionary benefits, and compassionate appointment to his legal heir following the conversion of Gram Panchayat, Soygaon, into Nagar Panchayat, Soygaon. The Court held that mere continuation of service after conversion does not create a legal right to absorption, particularly in the absence of a sanctioned post.
The petitioner was appointed as a sweeper in the Gram Panchayat, Soygaon, on March 31, 1980, and claimed permanency and continued service after conversion into Nagar Panchayat in 2015. While his name was forwarded in the list of employees sent to higher authorities, no formal order of absorption or permanency was ever issued. Shortly before his retirement on December 16, 2023, the petitioner sought absorption. After retirement, he also applied for compassionate appointment for his legal heir, which was rejected by orders dated January 11, 2024 and January 15, 2024, on the grounds that he was never absorbed and that the post of sweeper was not sanctioned in the Nagar Panchayat establishment.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar examined the petitioner’s reliance on the Lad-Page Committee Report, which provides for the protection of service conditions of Gram Panchayat employees upon conversion. The Bench observed that the recommendations apply only to permanent employees holding sanctioned posts, and do not confer an automatic right of absorption or compassionate appointment. In the present case, there was no material to show that the post of sweeper was sanctioned in the Nagar Panchayat, nor any order granting permanency after conversion.
The Court further noted that the petitioner raised his claim for absorption belatedly in 2023, nearly eight years after conversion and just before retirement, which further weakened his case. It reiterated that a compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of recruitment and can be granted only in strict conformity with the applicable policy, which was not satisfied in the petitioner’s case.
Accordingly, the High Court held that no writ could be issued directing the authorities to create or sanction a post, regularise service, or grant compassionate appointment, and dismissed the petition.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner – Advocate Rahul R. Awhad.
For the State – AGP Abhijit M. Phule.
