Job for BMC staff’s kin not a rule: High court

Children of former Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) employees who retired from work and are still alive should not be considered on compassionate grounds for their parents’ job, the Bombay high court has ruled while dismissing the petitions of five persons who had approached the high court seeking directions to the BMC for absorbing them.

A division bench of justice AM Khanwilkar and justice MR Bhatkar dismissed the petition filed by Balu Londhe and four others who are children of former BMC employees.

According to the petition, in 1989, the BMC developed a scheme for absorbing children of retired officials. However, in 1997, the scheme was stalled with the claim that there were not enough vacancies in the corporation.

Later in 1998, the BMC called for many applications and even interviewed candidates but over 500 people were kept on the waiting list where they continue to be today. As of now, 2,000 posts for class IV employees are vacant in the corporation. But last year, the BMC called for fresh applications and received around 8,000 applications.

The petitioners said that the BMC is acting in an unfair and arbitrary manner by calling for fresh applications and not considering them for the vacancies in the corporation. Accordingly, the petition prayed that the high court set aside the stay on recruiting children of former employees issued in the year 2000. Moreover, they should be given wages and considered for promotion. The petitioners also sought that the BMC be directed not to recruit any other persons for the openings.

The corporation opposed the petition, stating that it was not the practice to take children of former employees. It relied on a supreme court judgment of 1987, of Yogendar Pal Singh v/s Union of India, where the apex court had denied employment to Singh in the Delhi police force, stating that employment should be given on merit and not on compassionate grounds. Accepting the BMC’s plea, the court rejected the petition.

BMC counsel Geeta Joglekar said, “If this practice is allowed, it will mean violation of Article 16 (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment). And the HC also agreed with us."

Vilas Kamble, one of the petitioners, said, “The decision of the high court is very disheartening and now we will have to look for opportunities in the private sector where we stand to lose any long-term security.”