SANTOSH JAGANNATH GALBE vs THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

Court: Bombay High Court
Case type: Writ Petition
Decided on: 30-03-2026

<div> 2026:BHC-AUG:13550 Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6776 OF 2024 District : Parbhani Santosh s/o. Jagannath Galbe, Age : 40 Years, Occ. Member of Gram Panchayat/ Gram Rojgar Sevak, r/o. Devegaon, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Chh. Sambhajinagar 2. The District Collector, Parbhani 3. Krushna s/o. Sahebrao Kamble, Age : 36 Years, Occ. Agri., 4. Gajanan s/o. Rajeshwar Galbe, Age : 38 Years, Occ. Agri., 5. Gram Sevak, Gram Panahayat Office, Devegaon, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani ..Respondents ---- Mr.Mahesh P. Kale, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.M.L.Sangit, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr.N.R.Pawade, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4 Mr.G.V.Mohekar, Advocate for respondent no.5 ---- CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : MARCH 30, 2026 Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 2 JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Considering the nature of controversy and apprehension of the petitioner to face the same objection of disqualification in the ensuing election, the petition is taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. SUBJECT–MATTER :- Whether the post of ‘Gram Rojgar Sevak’ under the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 r/w. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme reinforced by the Government of Maharashtra fall within the definition of an office of profit or a salaried position in the office of a Panchayat AND is hit by disqualification under Section 14(1)(f) or (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (“the Act of 1958” for brevity) is the point for consideration in this Writ Petition. 3. FACTS :- 3.1 The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner is an elected Member of Village Panchayat, Devegaon, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani. He used to work as a Gram Rojgar Sevak under the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011. Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 3 3.2 The respondent no.3 filed a complaint/dispute against the petitioner before the District Collector, Parbhani, seeking petitioner’s disqualification under Section 14(1)(f) and (g) of the Act. The respondent no.4 is the one who is conducting functions of the Grampanchayat and was also a party respondent no.1 in the dispute. 3.3 It was the contention of the disputant/respondent no.3 that admittedly, the petitioner was working as a Gram Rojgar Sevak. That, it is a post of profit and interest. The petitioner was getting remuneration from the said post and had interest in the Grampanchayat. As such, the respondent no.3 contended that the petitioner was to be held disqualified to continue as a Member under Section 14(1)(f)(g) of the Act of 1958. 3.4 The petitioner defended the complaint and denied that he was disqualified under the given provisions of the Act of 1958. It was his reply that he was working as a Gram Rojgar Sevak in view of the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011. He would submit that in terms of the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011, the petitioner was neither employed by the Grampanchayat nor was holding any salaried office or a position of profit in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat while holding his position. Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 4 3.5 The Petitioner also submitted that in the sense he is not directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, has any share or interest in the work done by the order of the Panchayat or in any contract with, by or on behalf of, or employment with or under, the Panchayat. As such, the petitioner prayed to dismiss the complaint of disqualification lodged by the Respondent No.3. 3.6 The Authority to decide disqualification of an elected member of Village Panchayat rests with the District Collector u/s 14 of the Act of 1958. The respondent no.2 – District Collector heard the parties to the dispute. At the conclusion of the hearing,the Collector agreed with the objections raised by the respondent no.3. Consequently,vide order dated 03.01.2024, the respondent no.2 held the petitioner disqualified to continue on the post of Member of the Grampanchayat under Section 4(1)(f) (g) of the Act of 1958. 3.7 The petitioner challenged the disqualification order in an appeal under Section 16(2) of the Act of 1958 before the respondent no.1. However, vide order dated 27.06.2024 the respondent no.1 concurred with the findings rendered by the respondent no.3. Hence, the petitioner has challenged both orders referred supra in this Writ Petition. Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 5 4. SUBMISSIONS :- 4.1 . Mr. Mahesh Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me to the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011. He would submit that from the plain reading of the clause no.1 of the Government Resolution, it is clear that the petitioner was not a salaried person nor was employee of the State Government/Zilla Parishad/Panchayat Samiti and also was not regular salaried employee of the Grampanchayat. 4.2 My attention is then invited by Mr.Kale, learned counsel to clause no.2 of the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011. Pointing out to the contents of paragraph 2, he submits that the petitioner is not appointed by the Village Panchayat. It is the Gramsabha which has conferred the work of ‘Gram Rojgar Sevak’ on the petitioner. 4.3 Mr.Kale further gave emphasis on clause no.7 of the Government Resolution of 2011. He would submit that the remuneration/honorarium payable to the petitioner was to be credited out of the 6% administrative expenditure. He would submit that as such it is not the Village Panchayat that pays any remuneration/honorarium to the petitioner out of the Village Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 6 Panchayat’s account. Thus, applicability of Section 14 (1) (f) of the Act of 1958 is disputed by the Petitioner. 4.4 As regards to the disqualification u/s 14(1)(g) of the Act of 1958 is concerned, Mr. Mahesh Kale submits that the same is not applicable even remotely to the petitioner’s case. He would submit that while clause (f) refers to the position of the Village Panchayat’s Member to hold a salary office or a place of profit, while holding such office; clause (g) of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1958 refers to any share or interest of such Member in any work of the Panchayat. 4.5 Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the decisions in the cases of (i) Rukhminbai Badrinath Shedage Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2020 STPL 45 Bombay ; (ii) Divya Prakash Vs. Kultar Chand Rana and anr., 1974 STPl 3044 SC ; (iii) Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar Vs. Chanbasangouda Hanumanthagouda Patil, 1970 STPL 411 SC ; and (iv) Shibu Soren Vs. Dayanand Sahay, 2001 STPL 9142 SC . Thus, Mr.Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition and set aside the orders of disqualification, passed by respondent no.2 and confirmed by respondent no.1. Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 7 4.6 Mr.Pawade, learned counsel for respondent no.3 – disputant would support the findings recorded by respondent nos.2 and respondent no.1. He would submit that the petitioner has not countered that he was working as Gram Rojgar Sevak. That, respondent no.3 - Collector in the impugned order has rightly observed that the position held by the petitioner, although may not be a salaried post but happened to be a place of profit. He would further submit that even, the respondent no.1 has concurred such findings and hence, the Writ Petition may be dismissed. 5. Discussion and consideration :- With the able assistance of learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the Writ Petition compilation, the documents annexed to it and the entire record of the Writ Petition. The Government Resolution dated 02-05-2011 is crucial to arrive at conclusion in the dispute in hand in the light of the disqualification provision u/s 14 (1) (f) (g) of the Act of 1958 are concerned. 5.1 For the sake of convenience, Section 14(1)(f) and (g) of the Act of 1958 are reproduced as follows:- Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 8 14.(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat, or continue as such, who— (a) ….. (b) ….. (c) ….. (d) ….. (e) ….. (f) holds any salaried office or place of profit in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat, while holding such office or place ; or (g) has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any work done by order of the Panchayat, or in any contract with, by or on behalf of, or employment with or under, the Panchayat ; 5.2 . From the recitals of the clauses (f) and (g) of the Section 14(1) of the Act of 1958, disqualification u/s 14(1) (f) would depend upon the nature of work and the service conditions of the elected candidate who is alleged of the said disqualification. Similarly, the disqualification u/s 14(1) (g) of the Act would depend upon the factual aspect of the every case and the evidence to that effect. Accordingly, firstly the Petitioner’s service conditions need to be tested to see whether his job is hit by Section 14 (1)(f) of the Act. This clause refers to ‘salaried post’ and ‘office of profit’. First, I shall deal on this aspect of the matter. Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 9 SALARIED POSITION 5.3 The Government of Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act 1977 (‘Act of 1977’ for brevity) in conformity with Article 41 of the Indian Constitution. The object of the Act of 1977 was to make effective provision for securing the right to work by guaranteeing employment to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work in rural areas in the State of Maharashtra. In the year 2006, the Central Government passed the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (‘MNREG Act’ for brevity). The preface to the MNREG Act provides that, to provide for the enhancement of livelihood security of the households in rural areas of the country by providing at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 5.4 In view of Section 28 of the MNREG Act of 2005, the Government of Maharashtra in the year 2006 continued the Act of 1977 in conformity with the MNREGA Act 2005. In tune with the MNREGA Act of 2005, the Government of Maharashtra also enacted Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 10 the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme for effective implementation of the object under the Acts of 1977 and the MNREG Act of 2005. 5.4.1 In terms of the provisions under the Act of 1977, three components i.e. the State, Gramsabha, and Gram Panchayat were determined with definite responsibility. It is the responsibility of the State to provide work to the adult on his/her demand within the village panchayat limit. Gramsabha is entrusted with the responsibility of organizing the work for the beneficiaries. Engaging the desirous adult on the approved work and to launch the actual work is the responsibility of the Gram Panchayat. The responsibility of record keeping is on the shoulders of the Sarpanch and the Gramsevak in the Village. Services of outsourced candidates are hired to assist the Gramsevak in his work and for updating the computer data. Such outsourced persons are named as Gram Rojgar Sevak. 5.5 The Act of 1977 comprised of entire mechanism to implement its object. The Government of Maharashtra issued guidelines from time to time as regards to implementation of the Act. Hiring services of helpers was thus provided. The helpers were named as Gram Rojgar Sevaks. The Government of Maharashtra Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 11 issued a Government Resolution on 02-05-2011 thereby defining service conditions of the Gram Rojgar Sevaks in the State. This Government Resolution of 2011 compiled all earlier guidelines and instructions, and with an intent to streamline service norms pan State, provided the modified guidelines. The case in hand is governed by the Government Resolution dated 02-05-2011. The Government Resolution dated 02-05-2011 reads thus:- प्रस्तावनाः - राज्यात ग्रामपंचायतीमार्फत जवाहर रोजगार योजना , ग्रामीण भूमिहीन रोजगार हमी ( आरएलईजीएस ), संपूर्ण ग्रामीण रोजगार योजना इत्यादि योजना राबविल्या जात होत्या . सन २००६ पर्यंत या विकास योजना म्हणून राबविण्यात येत होत्या , व २००६ नंतर त्यांचे कायद्यात रूपांतर झाले . , २००५ केंद्र शासनामार्फत महात्मा गांधी राष्ट्रीय ग्रामीण रोजगार हमी अधिनियम पारित केल्यानंतर , तसेच महाराष्ट्र रोजगार हमी कायदा २००६ मध्ये सुधारणा केल्यानंतर गावांतील प्रत्येक प्रौढ व्यक्तिची नोंद करून त्याने कामाची मागणी केल्यानंतर संबंधित ग्रामपंचायत हद्दीत कामे उपलब्ध करून देण्याची जबाबदारी शासनाची आहे . ग्रामसभा ही कामाचे नियोजन करणारी यंत्रणा असून गावातील प्रौढ व्यक्तीकडून जॉबकार्डसाठी अर्ज स्वीकारणे व त्यांनी केलेल्या कामाच्या मागणीप्रमाणे शेल्फवरील मंजूर कामांपैकी आवश्यकतेप्रमाणे काम सुरू करण्यांची जबाबदारी ग्रामपंचायतीची आहे . राष्ट्रीय ग्रामीण रोजगार हमी कायद्यातील तरतुदीनुसार ग्रामपंचायत हे कामाच्या नियोजनाच्या संदर्भात मूळ घटक आहे . ग्रामपंचायत स्तरावर मग्रारोहयोचे अभिलेख व नोंदवह्या ठेवल्या जातात . या कामाची जबाबदारी ग्रामपंचायतीची म्हणजेच सरपंच व ग्रामसेवक यांची आहे . या कामात ग्रामसेवकांना मदत करण्यासाठी व संगणकीय माहिती इ . भरण्यासाठी मदतनीस म्हणून ग्राम रोजगार सेवकांच्या सेवा बाह्यस्थ (outsourcing) पद्धतीने घेतल्या जातात . ग्राम रोजगार सेवकांची कर्तव्ये व जबाबदाऱ्या आणि त्यांच्या नियुक्तीच्या संदर्भात सुधारित मार्गदर्शक सुचना एकत्रितपणे देण्याची बाब शासनाच्या विचारधीन होती . शासन निर्णय ग्राम रोजगार सेवकांची कर्तव्य व जबाबदाऱ्या आणि त्यांच्या नियुक्तीच्या संदर्भात देण्यांत आलेले आदेश अधिक्रमीत करून ग्राम रोजगार सेवकांची कर्तव्ये व जबाबदाऱ्या आणि त्यांच्या नियुक्तीच्या Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 12 संदर्भात पुढीलप्रमाणे मार्गदर्शक सूचना देण्यांत येत आहेत . 1. महात्मागांधीराष्ट्रीयग्रामीणरोजगारहमीयोजनेचेअभिलेखवनोंदवह्याठेवण्याची बाबदारीसरपंचवग्रामसेवकांचीअसेल , मात्रयाकामातमदतकरण्याचीवप्रत्यक्षकाम करण्याचीजबाबदारीग्रामरोजगारसेवकाचीअसेल . त्यांच्याकामाचेस्वरूपपुढीलप्रमाणे असेल . अ ) ग्रामरोजगारसेवकाचेकामहेअर्धवेळस्वरूपाचेअसेल . ब ) ग्रामरोजगारसेवकपदाच्यामानधनातूनत्याचीकिंवात्याच्याकुटुंबाचीउपजीविका चालेल , अशीअपेक्षात्यानेधरूनये . ग्रामरोजगारसेवकाचेउत्पत्राचेअन्यमागेअसल्यासते करूनग्रामरोजगारसेवकपदाचेकामकरण्यासमुभाराहील . ग्रामरोजगारसेवकपदाचेहे मानधनत्याचेअधिकचेउत्पन्नअसेल . ( क ) कामाच्याप्रमाणानुसारत्यालामानधनप्रदानकेलेजाईल . ड ) ग्रामरोजगारसेवकांचीसेवातात्पुरत्यास्वरुपाचीअसेल . तेराज्यशासनजिल्हा परिषद / पंचायतसमितीचेकर्मचारीनसतील . तसेचतेग्रामपंचायतीचेहीनियमीतकर्मचारी नसतील . २ . नियुक्तीप्राधिकारी अ ) ग्रामरोजगारसेवकांच्यासेवाउपलब्धतेसंदर्भातग्रामसभा ( ग्रामपंचायतनव्हे ) निर्णय घेईल . ब ) त्यालाकाढूनटाकण्याच्यासंदर्भातग्रामपंचायतकिंवासरपंचयांनानिर्णयघेण्याचा अधिकारनसूनकेवळग्रामसभेसत्याबाबतनिर्णयघेण्याचाअधिकारअसेल . क ) ग्रामपंचायतीचेपदाधिकारीबदललेतरीग्रामरोजगारसेवकबदलूनये . ड ) सबळकारणावरूनग्रामरोजगारसेवकालाकाढूनटाकण्यापूर्वीत्यालानैसर्गिक न्यायानुसारग्रामसभेतत्याचेम्हणणेमांडण्याचीसंधीद्यावीआणि त्याबाबतग्रामसेवकाचे अभिप्रायघ्यावेत . इ ) गटविकासअधिकारी , विस्तारअधिकारी ( ग्रामपंचायत ) किंवातत्समअधिकारीयांनी त्यांनानियुक्तीचेआदेशदेऊनयेत . ३ . १शैक्षणिकअर्हतावइतरआवश्यकता - राग्रारोहयोचेअभिलेखठेवणेवग्रामरोजगारसेवकांनामदतकरणेहेग्रामरोजगारसेवकाचे ' कामअसल्यानेतोकिमानदहावीपासअसावा . ( १२वीपासअसलेल्यासप्राधान्यराहील .) अ ) जरदहावीपासनसलेल्याउमेदवाराचीनियुक्तीपुर्वीकरण्यांतआलेलीअसेलतरत्याची नियुक्तीपुढेचालूठेवण्यासहरकतनाही . ब ) त्यालावेबसाईटवरग्रामपंचायतक्षेत्रातीलराप्रारोहयोच्याकामाचीमाहितीभरण्याचेकाम Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 13 करावयाचेअसल्यानेपुढील६महिन्यामध्येत्याने MS-CIF किंवातत्समसंगणकपरीक्षा उत्तीर्णहोणेआवश्यकआहे . गटविकासअधिकारीलेखीकारणेनमूदकरूनफक्त अपवादात्मकपरिस्थि तीमध्येसदरकालावधीपुढील६महिनेपर्यंतवाढवूशकेल . अन्यथा त्याचीसेवासमाप्तकरण्यातयेईल . क ) भविष्यातत्याच्याकामाच्यासंदर्भातकाहीचाचण्याकिंवापरीक्षाघेण्यांतयेतील . जरया परीक्षांमध्येतोपासझालानाहीतरत्यालाकामावरूनकमीकरण्यासतोपात्रराहील . ३ . - २नियुक्तीच्यासंदर्भातइतरअटी अ ) उमेदवाराचेचारित्र्यनिष्कलंकअसावे , तसेचगांवक - यांचेत्याच्याबद्दलमतचांगले असावे . ब ) उत्तमआरोग्यअसावे . क ) गावातीलअंगमेहनतीचेकामकरण्याससक्षमअसलेल्याप्रौढव्यक्तिनाविशेषतमहिला , अनुसूचितजाती / नमातीच्यावअन्यतत्समप्रवर्गातीलग्रामस्थांनाज्यांच्यामधूमुख्यतःमजूर उपलब्धहोणारअसतातत्यांनासंवेदनशिलतेनेवव्यवस्थि तहाताळण्याचीक्षमताअसावी . ४ ) ग्रामरोजगारसेवकाचीकर्तव्ये - १ ) मग्रारोहयोच्यासंदर्भातीलग्रामपंचायतपातळीवरसर्वप्रकारचेअभिलेखतयारकरणेतो जतनकरण्यासाठीग्रामसेवकालामदतकरणे , २ ) त्यानेग्रामसेवकाच्यामार्गदर्शनाखालीसर्वप्रकारच्यानोंदीघ्याव्यात . तथापि सर्व अभिलेखयोग्यप्रकारे , व्यवस्थि तपणेवपरिपूर्णठेवण्याचीजबाबदारीग्रामसेवकाचीअसेल . ३ ) ग्रामसेवकाच्यामार्गदर्शनाखालीग्रामपंचायतीमध्येसर्वअभिलेखसांभाळण्याचेकामग्राम रोजगारसेवकानेकरावे . ४ ) भविष्यातमजूरांच्याहजेरीसाठीवापरावयाचीयांत्रिकवइलेक्ट्रॉनिकउपकरणे हाताळण्याचीक्षमतावतयारीअसावी . ५ ) मजुरांचेहजेरीपत्रकसांभाळावे . ६ ) रोजगारकार्यक्रमगांवात्तसुरळीतपणेवसुनियोजितपणेराबविण्यासाठीवयशस्वी करण्यासाठीग्रामसेवकाच्यामार्गदर्शनाखालीसर्वतोपरीप्रयत्नकरावेत . ७ ) मोजमापघेण्यासाठीकनिष्ठअभियंत्यांनावतत्समतांत्रीकअधिकाऱ्यांनामदतकरणे , व शासनाच्याआणि पंचायतसमितीच्याकर्मचा - यांनारोजगारकार्यक्रमासंदर्भातसहाय्य करणे . ८ ) आवश्यकताभासल्यासमस्टररोलगटविकासअधिकारीकार्यालयातघेऊनजाणेव बैंकआणि पोस्टऑफिसशीसंपर्कसाधूनमजूरांच्यामजूरीप्रदानासविलंबहोणारनाही याबाबतदक्षरहाणे . ५ ) गैरवर्तणूक १ ) मग्रारोहयोच्याअभिलेखाचीनीटकाळजीनघेणेवचांगल्याप्रकारेकामनकरणे २ ) भ्रष्टाचारवखोट्याहजेरीपत्रकाबाबततक्रारीआल्यासत्यागैरवर्तणुकीशीसंबंधित Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 14 समजण्यातयेतील . ३ ) मजुरांनावाईटवागणूकदेणे . ४ ) मजुरवविशेषतःमहिलामजूरयांचेशीगैरवर्तणुकीच्यातक्रारीततथ्यआढळूनआल्यास मानधनातकपातकरण्यापासूनकामावरूननिष्कासितकरण्यापर्यंतदंडात्मककारवाई करण्यातयेईल . ६ ) एकाग्रामपंचायतीमध्येग्रामरोजगारसेवकांचीसंख्या शक्यतोएकाग्रामपंचायतीमध्येएकग्रामरोजगारसेवकअसावा . तथापि ग्रामपंचायतमोठी असल्यासकिंवाग्रामपंचायतक्षेत्रातमोठ्याप्रमाणावरकामेअसल्यासकिंवाआदिवासीव मागासभागअसल्यासकिंवाजेथेग्रामपंचायतीमध्येजास्तगांवेविखुरलेल्यास्वरूपात असतीलतरएकापेक्षाजास्तग्रामरोजगारसेवकघेतायेतील . ७ ) ग्रामरोजगारसेवकांनाप्रदाने :- १ ) ग्रामपंचायतस्तरावरझालेल्यामजुरीच्याप्रदानावरवेळोवेळीनिश्चितकेलेल्यादराने मानधन . 2) सदरमानधन६ % प्रशासकीयखर्चाच्यानिधीमधूनदेण्यांतयेईल 3) गटविकासअधिका - यांकडूनशक्यतोदरपंधरादिवसांनीमानधनअदाकरण्यांतयेईल . परंतु१महिन्यापेक्षाजास्तकालावधीतप्रदानेकरूनयेत . ४ ) गटविकासअधिकारीकार्यालयातजाण्यासाठीकिंवाप्रामसेवकांच्यासूचनेप्रमाणेप्रवास करण्यासाठीकेलेल्याखर्चाचीतसेचअन्यतत्समखर्चाचीदेयके६ % प्रशासकीयखर्चाच्या निधीमधूनअदाकरण्यांतयेतील . ग्रामरोजगारसेवकांच्यासेवाउपलब्धतेबाबतवरीलप्रमाणेकार्यवाहीकरून , त्यांच्यासेवेचा वापरमहात्मागांधीराष्ट्रीयग्रामीणरोजगारहमीयोजनेच्याप्रभावीअंमलबजावणीसाठी करण्यांतयावा . 5.6 From the recitals of the preface and clause No.1 to the Government Resolution dated 02-05-2011, it is crystal clear that the Gram Rojgar Sevak is not a permanent employee of Village Panchayat under the scheme of 2011 nor holds a salaried office of any type. It is abundantly clear that the petitioner’s work being Gram Rojgar Sevak, was part-time, of contractual nature on Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 15 outsourced basis, and he was to be paid honorarium corresponding to the proportion of his work. It is also clear that the Petitioner was not a regular employee of State Government/Zilla Parishad/Panchayat Samiti or Grampanchayat. The preface of the Government Resolution of 2011 in fact states that the Gram Rojgar Sevak is appointed on outsourced basis. 5.7 For sake of convenience, clause no.1 of the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011 is reproduced as under:- 1. महात्मागांधीराष्ट्रीयग्रामीणरोजगारहमीयोजनेचेअभिलेखवनोंदवह्या ठेवण्याचीबाबदारीसरपंचवग्रामसेवकांचीअसेल , मात्रयाकामातमदत करण्याचीवप्रत्यक्षकामकरण्याचीजबाबदारीग्रामरोजगारसेवकाचीअसेल . त्यांच्याकामाचेस्वरूपपुढीलप्रमाणेअसेल . अ ) ग्रामरोजगारसेवकाचेकामहेअर्धवेळस्वरूपाचेअसेल . ब ) ग्रामरोजगारसेवकपदाच्यामानधनातूनत्याचीकिंवात्याच्याकुटुंबाची उपजीविकाचालेल , अशीअपेक्षात्यानेधरूनये . ग्रामरोजगारसेवकाचेउत्पत्राचे अन्यमागेअसल्यासतेकरूनग्रामरोजगारसेवकपदाचेकामकरण्यासमुभा राहील . ग्रामरोजगारसेवकपदाचेहेमानधनत्याचेअधिकचेउत्पन्नअसेल . ( क ) कामाच्याप्रमाणानुसारत्यालामानधनप्रदानकेलेजाईल . ड ) ग्रामरोजगारसेवकांचीसेवातात्पुरत्यास्वरुपाचीअसेल . तेराज्यशासन जिल्हापरिषद / पंचायतसमितीचेकर्मचारीनसतील . तसेचतेग्रामपंचायतीचेही नियमीतकर्मचारीनसतील . 5.8 Clause no.2 of the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011 also makes it clear that the petitioner cannot be said to have been appointed by the Grampanchayat. Gram Rojgar Sevak is appointed by the Gram Sabha, not by the Gram Panchayat, nor by Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 16 the Zilla Parishad authorities or Panchayat Samiti authorities. Clause no.2 reads thus:- २ . नियुक्तीप्राधिकारी अ ) ग्रामरोजगारसेवकांच्यासेवाउपलब्धतेसंदर्भातग्रामसभा ( ग्रामपंचायतनव्हे ) निर्णयघेईल . ब ) त्यालाकाढूनटाकण्याच्यासंदर्भातग्रामपंचायतकिंवासरपंचयांनानिर्णय घेण्याचाअधिकारनसूनकेवळग्रामसभेसत्याबाबतनिर्णयघेण्याचाअधिकार असेल . क ) ग्रामपंचायतीचेपदाधिकारीबदललेतरीग्रामरोजगारसेवकबदलूनये . ड ) सबळकारणावरूनग्रामरोजगारसेवकालाकाढूनटाकण्यापूर्वीत्यालानैसर्गिक न्यायानुसारग्रामसभेतत्याचेम्हणणेमांडण्याचीसंधीद्यावीआणि त्याबाबतग्राम सेवकाचेअभिप्रायघ्यावेत . इ ) गटविकासअधिकारी , विस्तारअधिकारी ( ग्रामपंचायत ) किंवातत्समअधिकारी यांनीत्यांनानियुक्तीचेआदेशदेऊनयेत . 5.9 It is expressly provided in the Government Resolution of 2011 that it is the Gramsabha, not the Village Panchayat that hires the services of Gram Rojgar Sevak. Now, it would be needful to go through clause no. 7 of Government Resolution of 2011. The said clause clearly lays down that the payment to be given to the petitioner was to be credited out of 6% administrative expenses meant for the effective execution and implementation of Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rojgar Hami Yojana. Clause 7 is reproduced as under:- Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 17 ७ ) ग्रामरोजगारसेवकांनाप्रदाने :- १ ) ग्रामपंचायतस्तरावरझालेल्यामजुरीच्याप्रदानावरवेळोवेळीनिश्चितकेलेल्या दरानेमानधन . 2) सदरमानधन६ % प्रशासकीयखर्चाच्यानिधीमधूनदेण्यांतयेईल 3) गटविकासअधिका - यांकडूनशक्यतोदरपंधरादिवसांनीमानधनअदा करण्यांतयेईल . परंतु१महिन्यापेक्षाजास्तकालावधीतप्रदानेकरूनयेत . ४ ) गटविकासअधिकारीकार्यालयातजाण्यासाठीकिंवाप्रामसेवकांच्या सूचनेप्रमाणेप्रवासकरण्यासाठीकेलेल्याखर्चाचीतसेचअन्यतत्समखर्चाचीदेयके ६ % प्रशासकीयखर्चाच्यानिधीमधूनअदाकरण्यांतयेतील . ग्रामरोजगारसेवकांच्यासेवाउपलब्धतेबाबतवरीलप्रमाणेकार्यवाहीकरून , त्यांच्या सेवेचावापरमहात्मागांधीराष्ट्रीयग्रामीणरोजगारहमीयोजनेच्याप्रभावी अंमलबजावणीसाठीकरण्यांतयावा . 5.10 Thus, its clear that the Gram Rojgar Sevak i.e. the Petitioner doesn’t get any salary from the Village Panchayat, nor the Petitioner holds a salaried office within the meaning of Section 14(1) (f) of the Act of 1958. OFFICE OF PROFIT Lets now see whether the subject-matter post i.e. Gram Rojgar Sevak can be termed as ‘office of profit/place of profit’ within the meaning of Section 14(1) (f) of the Act of 1958. 5.11 Disqualification of an elected member of a local body in the State of Maharashtra owing to holding an office of profit is floated from the Article 102 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution which reads thus: Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 18 “102. Disqualifications for membership.—(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament— 1 [(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder;” Another constitutional provision u/a 191 (1) (a) speaks thus: “191. Disqualifications for membership.—(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State—1 [(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder;]” 5.12 Disqualification of a democratically elected member in Indian democratic system has its deep roots in the “Separation of Power” theory adopted by the makers of the Indian Constitution. The whole object of imposing such constitutional disqualification is to avoid the conflicting interests of the democratically elected Members of Parliament and the Houses, with the executive functionary and the Institution. 5.13 The Local Body Acts in the State of Maharashtra derived the concept of disqualification of the elected members on the lines of the disqualifications imposed u/a 102 (1) (a) and 191 (1)(a) of the Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 19 Constitution. Section 14(1) (f) and (g) of the Act of 1958 prescribes such disqualification (supra). 5.14 The term ‘office of profit/place of profit’ is not defined in the Act of 1958 in the State of Maharashtra. However, through the various judgments rendered by this Court as also by the Honorable Supreme Court, the interpretation is evolved that ‘office of profit or place of profit’ means a position that brings to the office-holder some financial gain, or advantage, or benefit. 5.15 The law evolved on the point of what is ‘office of profit’ would show that to check whether a candidate holds an office of profit/place of profit, is to test the source of appointment and the service conditions of such candidate. A number of factors determine whether the post in question is an office/place of profit or not i.e. (I) appointing authority – source of appointment, (ii) consideration against services i.e. remuneration and its source, (iii) the service conditions including the disciplinary authority etc. 5.16 As recorded supra, the Government Resolution of 2011 prescribes service conditions of the Gram Rojgar Sevak. It has descriptively observed above that Gram Rojgar Sevak is appointed by Gram Sabha, not by Village Panchayat or any other authority of Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 20 the State Govt, Zilla Parishad or Panchayat Samiti. The services are contractual, occasional in nature and that too, on outsourced basis. The remuneration is in form of honorarium which has to be paid through the administrative expenses of the Project under the Scheme under the Act of 1977 and the Employment Guarantee Scheme. This clearly lays down that the Gram Rojgar Sevak does not hold office of profit within the meaning of Section 14(1) (f) of the Act of 1958. 5.17 As such, this Court hereby holds that the petitioner- the Gram Rojgar Sevak was “not holding any salaried office or place of profit in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat, while holding such office or place” within the meaning of Section 14 (1) (f) of the Act . The post of Gram Rojgar Sevak created under the Act of 1977 and regulated by the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011 thus does not fall within the purview of Section 14(1) (f) of the Act of 1958 disqualifying an elected candidate on account of holding a salaried office or office of profit. Section 14 (1) (g) 5.18 So far as the disqualification u/s 14(1) (g) of the Act of 1958 is concerned, Mr.Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner, in Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 21 support of his arguments relies on a judgment of this Court in the case of Rukminibai (supra). 5.19 Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Divya Prakash (supra), Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar (supra) and (iv) Shibu Soren (supra) Referring to these cases, Mr.Kale submits that the work of the petitioner as Gram Rojgar Sevak cannot be termed to be a work of profit/office of profit. 5.20 I have respectfully gone through the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and passed by this court referred to herein above. It has been consistently held that the nature of work and the service conditions would determine whether a candidate is disqualified for holding a ‘office/place of profit’. In Rukminibai’s case (supra), this Court held that an elected candidate’s husband being a beneficiary of a scheme implemented in the village in one thing, but that itself doesn’t disqualify the elected woman as if she has derived some profit , share or interest in terms of Section 14 (1)(g) of the Act of 1958. I have no reason to depart from the view expressed by the Honorable Supreme Court and this Court in the cited cases. In Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 22 view of the nature of work of the petitioner and the mode of his honorarium, as per the Government Resolution of 2011, I find that the petitioner’s case is covered by the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner (supra). 5.21 Petitioner’s service conditions shown in the Government Resolution of 2011 clearly demonstrate that the Gram Rojgar Sevak has no directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any work done by order of the Panchayat, or in any contract with, by or on behalf of, or employment with or under, the Panchayat. As per the Scheme under the Act of 1977 and the Government Resolution of 2011, duties of the State Govt., Gram Sabha and the Village Panchayat are distinctly earmarked. As observed supra, State Govt.’s responsibility is to make available job on demand by an adult. Gram Sabha has to organize the work on which job is to be offered. Village Panchayat has to initiate the job on the work approved under the Scheme. Honorarium of the Gram Rojgar Sevak is to be paid out of the 6% fund reserved for administrative expenses. At no juncture in this set up mechanism, the Gram Rojgar Sevak has any role or an occasion to receive anyway any interest or share within the meaning of Section 14(1) (f) of the 1958 Act. Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 23 5.22 Even the learned Counsel for the respondent side could not place on record, except the admitted fact that the Petitioner was working as Gram Rojgar Sevak. 5.23 To sum up, I hold that the post of “Gram Rojgar Sevak” created under the implementation of the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act 1977 in conformity with the MNREGA Act 2005, and regulated by the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011 does not form to be a salaried office or place of profit in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat within the meaning of Section 14(1)(f) of the Act. I also hold that the remuneration/honorarium earned by a Village Panchayat Member as Gramin Rojgar Sevak cannot be said to have any share or interest in any work done by the order of Panchayat or in any contract with, by or on behalf of, or employment with or under, the panchayat within the meaning of Section 14(1) (g) of the Act. In other words, an elected member of a Village Panchayat who works as Gram Rojgar Sevak while on post, can not be disqualified u/s 14(1) (f) or (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1958. Writ Petition No.6776 of 2024.docx 24 5.24 In my considered view, both the respondent nos.1 and 2 failed to correctly appreciate the provisions under Section 14(1)(f) and (g) of the Act and also utterly failed to appreciate the provisions under the Government Resolution dated 02-05-2011. I have no hesitation in my mind to hold that the petitioner has successfully made out a case for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders cannot be sustained. 6 . Hence, the following order:- (i) The Writ Petition stands allowed. (ii) The order dated 03.01.2024 (Exh.D), passed by respondent no.2 – Collector and confirmed by respondent no.1 – the Addl. Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 27.06.2024 (Exh.”H”) is quashed and set aside. Consequently, it is held that the Petitioner is not disqualified u/s 14(1) (f) or (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1958. (iii) Petitioner’s position as an elected member of the Village Panchayat Devegaon, Taluka Pathri, Dist. Parbhani stands restored forthwith, if term of the Village Panchayat still subsists. (iv) Rule made absolute in the above terms. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] ……….. KBP</div>