Bombay High Court
WP/7433/2026 of SMT. SANTOSHI W/O SURAJ TAMBEKAR Vs STATE OF MAHA., THR. SECY. DEPT. OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, AND ORS. on 12 October 2026
IN THE
1 103-7433-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7433/2026
Smt. Santoshi W/o Suraj Tambekar Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Social Justice and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. Kaustubh Deogade, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. A.V. Palshikar, AGP for Respondent No.1
CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE, AND
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATED : 12.10.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present petition is filed seeking to quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 02.09.2026, whereby the petitioner was informed that her application for appointment as a Safai Karmachari under the Lad-Pagey Committee recommendations had been rejected.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was taking care of respondent No.3 – Shantabai, widow of late Manohar Balaji Kautamwar, who was serving as a Safai Karmachari with respondent No.2 – Municipal Council. Manohar Kautamwar passed away on 19.03.2010 while in service, leaving behind three legal heirs, namely, his two sons, Raju Manohar Kautamwar and Ravi Manohar Kautamwar, and his widow, respondent No.3. The two sons subsequently passed away on 21.04.2018 and 22.06.2021, respectively, leaving respondent No.3 as the surviving member of the family.
2 103-7433-2026.odt
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 had nominated the petitioner for appointment as a Safai Karmachari under the recommendations of the Lad Pagey Committee. However, respondent No.3 subsequently withdrew the said nomination. Being aggrieved by the rejection of her application consequent thereto, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once respondent No.3 had nominated the petitioner for appointment as a Safai Karmachari under the Lad Pagey Committee recommendations, she could not have subsequently withdrawn the said nomination.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent–State submits that the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of merit. It is submitted that respondent No.3, being the widow of the deceased employee, is entitled to withdraw the nomination and nominate a person of her choice in accordance with the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 24.02.2023.
6. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the relevant provisions of the Government Resolution dated 24.02.2023, which governs the implementation of appointments to the post of Safai Karmachari on the basis of inheritance rights in accordance with the recommendations of the Lad Pagey Committee.
3 103-7433-2026.odt
7. Upon consideration of the material on record, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned communication. The rejection of the petitioner’s application is founded on the subsequent withdrawal of the nomination by respondent No.3, who has expressed her unwillingness to nominate the petitioner for appointment under the Lad Pagey Committee scheme. In the absence of any sustainable ground warranting interference with the impugned decision, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.
8. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) MP Deshpande Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 12/10/2026 17:46:33