Elected Member Working As 'Gram Rojgar Sevak' Not Disqualified For Holding 'Office Of Profit' Under Village Panchayats Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the post of Gram Rojgar Sevak does not constitute a “salaried office” or “office of profit” under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, and therefore does not attract the disqualification of an elected member. The Court observed that an elected member of a Village Panchayat who works as Gram Rojgar Sevak while on post, cannot be disqualified u/s 14(1) (f) or (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1958.

Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar was hearing a writ petition challenging orders passed by the District Collector and the Additional Divisional Commissioner disqualifying the petitioner, an elected member of a Village Panchayat. The disqualification was based on the allegation that the petitioner, while functioning as a Gram Rojgar Sevak under a Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011, held an office of profit and had an interest in Panchayat work, thereby attracting Sections 14(1)(f) and 14(1)(g) of the 1958 Act.

The Court examined the statutory framework under the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, along with the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011 governing the engagement of Gram Rojgar Sevaks. It noted that the scheme envisages distinct roles for the State, Gram Sabha, and Gram Panchayat, with Gram Rojgar Sevaks engaged on an outsourced, part-time basis to assist in implementation and record-keeping.

Upon analysing the Government Resolution, the Court found that Gram Rojgar Sevaks are not regular employees of the State, Zilla Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, or Gram Panchayat. Their services are temporary, part-time, and contractual in nature, and they are appointed by the Gram Sabha rather than the Panchayat. The honorarium paid to them is also not derived from the Panchayat's funds.

The Court held that for attracting disqualification under Section 14(1)(f), it must be shown that the person holds a salaried office or a place of profit in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat. Applying settled principles governing “office of profit,” the Court emphasised factors such as appointing authority, nature of duties, and source of remuneration. It concluded that the petitioner did not hold an office of profit within the meaning of the provision.

“…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.”, the Court observed

Analysing the role of Gram Rojgar Sevak, the Court held that at no juncture in the set-up mechanism, the Gram Rojgar Sevak has any role or an occasion to receive any interest or share within the meaning of Section 14(1) (f) of the 1958 Act

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders of the Collector and the Additional Divisional Commissioner, and held that an elected member of a Village Panchayat who works as Gram Rojgar Sevak while on post, cannot be disqualified u/s 14(1) (f) or (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1958.

Case Title: Santosh v. The Additional Divisional Commissioner & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 6776 OF 2024]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 160

Click Here To Read/Download Order