Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1514 (BOM)

Raghavendra Namdev Pastey v. State of Maharashtra

2025-12-10

ASHWIN D.BHOBE, RAVINDRA V.GHUGE

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. Writ Petition (St.) No. 39077 of 2025 and Writ Petition No. 16886 of 2025, are not on board. On request, taken on board and heard along with the other matters. 2. In all these matters, we find that the Petitioners as well as identically placed employees who have not approached the Court and have been working for around 10 to 15 years or even more, in some cases, with the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation on its core activities, are praying for regularisation. We are informed that the strength of these temporaries is around 479, approximately. 3. The Corporation has now advertised 668 sanctioned positions in various categories, sections and departments. All these posts are aimed at catering to the discharge of sovereign functions by the Municipal Corporation in providing civic amenities to the residents covered within the jurisdiction of the Corporation limits. The work appears to be of a perennial character and would continue to be available as long as the Corporation exists. 4. The issue raised is as to whether these 479 temporaries, who have worked in between 10 to 18 and more years, many of whom are also physically challenged and are beyond 50 years of age, should now be made to compete with young blood/fresh hands by participating in the selection process for the 668 advertised sanctioned posts. 5. The law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Madhukar S/o Bhavanrao Sadgir & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2019 (2) Mh. L.J. 119 of the Bombay High court, would support the claims of these employees. Instances of employees working since 2006 have also been brought to our notice through the pleadings in these Petitions. 6. We are informed by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Corporation that the advertisement is on the basis of the sanctioned 668 posts and fresh recruitment is the intention. 7. We are informed that the Corporation has decided to relax the age to enable the Petitioners and identically placed employees to participate in the selection process. By interim order dated 6 th May 2025, we had directed the Corporation that the service conditions of these Petitioners and similarly placed employees, would not be altered without the leave of this Court. 8. By interim order dated 6 th May 2025, we had directed the Corporation that the service conditions of these Petitioners and similarly placed employees, would not be altered without the leave of this Court. 8. The serious issue raised in these Petitions as noted above, is as to what would be the fate of these 479 temporaries who have been working in between 10 to 18 years on the core activities of the Corporation. Whether keeping them temporaries until they reach their age of superannuation or until young blood is recruited in their place and severe employer-employee relationship with no service benefits, on the ground that none of them were regularised in the service of the Corporation, would be justified? Should these contractual employees working on the core activities of the Corporation for decades, be made to compete at the age of 50 or 55 years, with the young youthful candidates? 9. The learned Senior Advocate for the Corporation is instructed to say that these appointments have been made illegally, through the back door, with recommendations of politicians, some have no documents with regard to their educational qualifications etc. The learned Senior Advocate along with other Advocates representing the Petitioners submit that it was the Corporation which recruited these people. It was the Corporation which continued them for 15 to 18 years.. Now that they are close to reaching the age of superannuation and the Government has sanctioned 668 posts. The Corporation desires to recruit fresh hands which amounts to exploitation of those temporaries who have been working 15 to 18 years. They also deny that these Petitioners have been illegally appointed. The Corporation has made such appointments, and now it cannot take advantage of its own doings. Therefore, reliance is placed on Secretary, State of Karnataka and others (supra) and Madhukar S/o Bhavanrao Sadgir & Ors.(supra). 10. In these circumstances, we find that it would be appropriate to direct the Urban Development Department of the State of Maharashtra, in the background of the submissions of Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Advocate that the Corporation had made an effort earlier in 2021 for seeking regularisation of these temporaries by sending the proposal dated 19.5.2021. The Urban Development Department was not agreeable to accept the proposal, by its decision dated 27/7/2021. 11. Sakhare, learned Senior Advocate that the Corporation had made an effort earlier in 2021 for seeking regularisation of these temporaries by sending the proposal dated 19.5.2021. The Urban Development Department was not agreeable to accept the proposal, by its decision dated 27/7/2021. 11. Prima facie, we find the facts in these cases to be similar to Secretary, State of Karnataka and others(supra) and Madhukar S/o Bhavanrao Sadgir & Ors. (supra), so also, the law laid down recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735. 12. We, therefore, find it appropriate to direct the learned AGP to place this Order before the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department. We recommend that the said authority would place this subject before the Highest Authority in the Department and take a well thought of decision as to whether these 479 people, can be considered for regularisation, depending upon the sanctioned posts on which they can be accommodated having discharged duties within the same department or same activity, as a ‘One Time Scheme’ . 13. The learned AGP submits that within 4 weeks’ time, the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department will place a Road Map before this Court to indicate as to how this issue and the reference made by the Court, is to be dealt with, more so, in the light of the earlier effort made by the Corporation seeking liberty to regularise these employees. 14. As such , we are listing these Petitions on 13 th January, 2026 in the urgent supplementary board to enable the learned AGP to apprise us of the view of the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department. We direct that the Road Map be placed before us through a short affidavit. 15. In view of the above, the Ad-Interim Order passed earlier would continue. 16. Respondents are at liberty to file their affidavit in reply prior to the next date. If any rejoinder affidavit is desired, the same be filed within 3 weeks.