Gram Rojgar Sevak post is not an office of profit disqualifying members under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the post of ‘Gram Rojgar Sevak’ under the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 and MGNREGA 2005 constitutes a 'salaried office' or 'place of profit' in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat under Section 14(1)(f) of the Act of 1958?

The court held

The Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the disqualification orders passed by the Collector and the Additional Divisional Commissioner

It also directed

It held that a Gram Rojgar Sevak is not a salaried office or place of profit under Section 14(1)(f) and does not hold a disqualifying interest under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958

The Court ordered the immediate restoration of the Petitioner to his position as an elected member of the Gram Panchayat

01Facts

The Petitioner was an elected member of the Gram Panchayat, Devegaon, Parbhani

¶ 3.1

He concurrently performed duties as a 'Gram Rojgar Sevak' (GRS) under a scheme governed by a Government Resolution (GR) dated 02.05.2011

¶ 3.1

Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint seeking the Petitioner’s disqualification under Section 14(1)(f) and (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, alleging that the GRS post was an "office of profit" and that the Petitioner held an interest in the Panchayat’s works

¶ 3.2, 3.3

The District Collector disqualified the Petitioner on 03.01.2024

¶ 3.6

a decision subsequently upheld by the Additional Divisional Commissioner on 27.06.2024

¶ 3.7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the post of ‘Gram Rojgar Sevak’ under the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 and MGNREGA 2005 constitutes a 'salaried office' or 'place of profit' in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat under Section 14(1)(f) of the Act of 1958?

¶ 2

ii.2. Whether the remuneration received as a Gram Rojgar Sevak constitutes a 'share or interest' in work done by the order of the Panchayat under Section 14(1)(g) of the Act of 1958?

¶ 2

03Law Applied

The Court primarily applied Section 14(1)(f) and (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, which mandates disqualification for members holding a salaried office/place of profit or having a direct/indirect interest in Panchayat contracts or work

¶ 5.1

It relied on the service conditions for GRS defined in the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011

¶ 5.5

The Court invoked constitutional principles from Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a) regarding "office of profit"

¶ 5.11

applied judicial tests from Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar v. Chanbasangouda Hanumanthagouda Patil and Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay to determine if a post constitutes an office of profit based on appointment authority, remuneration source, and disciplinary control

¶ 5.15, 5.19

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Maharashtra Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act. Section 14 Section 16

04Reasoning

The Court examined the nature of the GRS post through the 2011 GR, concluding it is a part-time, contractual, and outsourced role

¶ 5.6

It noted that the appointing and dismissing authority is the Gram Sabha, specifically excluding the Gram Panchayat or Sarpanch from such powers

¶ 5.8

Furthermore, the remuneration is an honorarium paid out of a 6% administrative fund reserved for the Employment Guarantee Scheme, not from the Village Panchayat’s general account

¶ 5.9, 5.16

Thus, the post is not "in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat"

¶ 5.17

Regarding Section 14(1)(g), the Court reasoned that since the roles of the State, Gram Sabha, and Panchayat are distinctly earmarked under the 1977 Act, a GRS has no occasion to derive a "share or interest" in Panchayat contracts or works

¶ 5.21

The Court found that both lower authorities failed to appreciate these service conditions and statutory distinctions

¶ 5.24