Gram Rojgar Sevak Not an “Office of Profit” Under the Panchayat: No Disqualification Under Section 14(1)(f)–(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958

1) Introduction

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Santosh s/o. Jagannath Galbe Vs. The Additional Divisional Commissioner and Others (decided on 30 March 2026, Coram: Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.) addressed a recurring disqualification issue in village self-government: whether an elected Gram Panchayat member working as a “Gram Rojgar Sevak” under the employment guarantee framework can be disqualified for holding an “office of profit” or for having an impermissible “share or interest” in Panchayat work.

The petitioner, an elected member of Gram Panchayat Devegaon (Parbhani), was disqualified by the District Collector under Section 14(1)(f) and 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, and that decision was affirmed in appeal by the Additional Divisional Commissioner. The High Court was moved under its supervisory jurisdiction, particularly because the petitioner apprehended repetition of the same objection in impending elections.

Key issue

Whether the post of Gram Rojgar Sevak, governed by the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011 under the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 read with the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, amounts to (i) a salaried office or place/office of profit “in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat” (Section 14(1)(f)), and/or (ii) a prohibited share or interest in Panchayat work/contract/employment (Section 14(1)(g)).

2) Summary of the Judgment

  • The Court held that a Gram Rojgar Sevak under the GR dated 02.05.2011 is not a salaried employee of the Gram Panchayat and does not hold a place/office of profit in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat for purposes of Section 14(1)(f).
  • The Court further held that such engagement does not create any direct or indirect share/interest in Panchayat work, contract, or “employment with or under” the Panchayat under Section 14(1)(g).
  • The disqualification orders of the District Collector (03.01.2024) and the Additional Divisional Commissioner (27.06.2024) were quashed, and the petitioner’s membership was directed to be restored (subject to subsistence of the Panchayat’s term).

3) Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The petitioner relied on four decisions, each used by the Court to reinforce the interpretive approach to “office of profit” and disqualification:

  • Rukhminbai Badrinath Shedage Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2020 STPL 45 Bombay
    Influence on this case: The High Court drew support from the principle that disqualification—especially under provisions akin to Section 14(1)(g)—requires a legally cognisable and sufficiently proximate “interest” attributable to the elected member; mere association with a scheme’s benefits or implementation does not automatically translate into disqualifying interest.
  • Divya Prakash Vs. Kultar Chand Rana and anr., 1974 STPl 3044 SC
    Influence on this case: Cited for the broader Supreme Court approach that “office of profit” is not decided by labels; courts examine the real substance of appointment, control, and pecuniary gain. This supported the High Court’s insistence on testing the petitioner’s status against the GR’s service architecture.
  • Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar Vs. Chanbasangouda Hanumanthagouda Patil, 1970 STPL 411 SC
    Influence on this case: Reinforced that the “office of profit” inquiry turns on multiple factors (including the authority that appoints/removes and the source of remuneration), rather than the mere fact of receiving some payment.
  • Shibu Soren Vs. Dayanand Sahay, 2001 STPL 9142 SC
    Influence on this case: Supported the accepted “multi-factor” test to identify an office of profit and the underlying constitutional objective of preventing conflict of interest and executive influence over elected representatives—an objective the High Court used to contextualise Section 14(1)(f).

Notably, while the judgment does not reproduce detailed ratio extracts from these cases, it uses them consistently for the settled methodology: determine disqualification by examining appointment/control/remuneration and the actual nexus with the Panchayat’s “gift or disposal” or with Panchayat work/contract.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

A. Interpretation of Section 14(1)(f): “salaried office” / “place of profit in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat”

The Court’s reasoning is anchored in the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011, treated as the governing instrument defining the role, tenure, and payment mechanism of Gram Rojgar Sevaks. Three GR features were decisive:

  1. Nature of engagement: part-time, temporary, outsourced, not regular service
    The GR states the work is part-time, the engagement is temporary, and Gram Rojgar Sevaks are engaged through outsourcing. Crucially, it clarifies they are not employees of the State Government/Zilla Parishad/Panchayat Samiti and not regular employees of the Gram Panchayat. This undercut the Collector’s implicit assumption that any paid engagement connected to Panchayat functioning is necessarily “salaried office” or “profit.”
  2. Source of appointment and removal: Gram Sabha, not Gram Panchayat
    The GR specifies that the decision to make services available is taken by the Gram Sabha (Gram Panchayat not), and removal authority is also vested in the Gram Sabha, not the Panchayat/Sarpanch. This mattered because Section 14(1)(f) targets offices/places of profit “in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat,” and the GR’s structure showed the Panchayat is not the dispensing authority.
  3. Remuneration: honorarium from scheme administrative funds (6%), not Panchayat salary
    Payment is framed as honorarium linked to work, paid from the scheme’s 6% administrative expenses, typically disbursed through development administration channels (as per the GR’s mechanism). The Court treated this as materially different from holding a salaried Panchayat post funded and controlled by the Panchayat.

To place Section 14(1)(f) in constitutional context, the Court referenced Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a) and the separation of powers/conflict-of-interest rationale. It then applied the evolved “office of profit” tests (appointment authority, remuneration and its source, and service conditions including control/discipline) and concluded the petitioner’s role fails to qualify as an office/place of profit “in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat.”

B. Interpretation of Section 14(1)(g): “share or interest” in Panchayat work/contract/employment

Section 14(1)(g) is broader and fact-sensitive: it disqualifies a member who has, directly or indirectly, a share or interest in (i) work done by order of the Panchayat, or (ii) any contract with/by/on behalf of the Panchayat, or (iii) employment with/under the Panchayat.

The Court reasoned that the employment-guarantee framework creates distinct responsibilities for the State, Gram Sabha, and Gram Panchayat, and the Gram Rojgar Sevak’s role is essentially to assist in record-keeping and scheme administration, with honorarium drawn from scheme administrative funds. On these facts, the Court found:

  • No evidence of the petitioner having any share or interest in Panchayat work orders or contracts;
  • No “employment with or under” the Panchayat in the GR-defined sense (given the appointment/removal/payment architecture);
  • The respondent side pointed to only one admitted fact—that the petitioner worked as Gram Rojgar Sevak—insufficient by itself to establish Section 14(1)(g) disqualification.

C. Supervisory correction under Article 227

The Court held that both the Collector and the appellate authority misappreciated (i) the statutory disqualification requirements and (ii) the GR’s binding service architecture, warranting interference under Article 227 and setting aside both orders.

3.3 Impact

  • Immediate doctrinal clarification for local-body disqualification disputes: Merely receiving an honorarium for scheme-related support functions does not automatically translate into an “office of profit” or disqualifying “interest”; authorities must apply the structured, multi-factor test.
  • Administrative decision-making discipline: Collectors and Commissioners deciding Section 14 disputes must examine the source of appointment, source of funds, and control/removal—and cannot treat “profit” as synonymous with “any payment.”
  • Practical electoral implication: Village Panchayat members serving as Gram Rojgar Sevaks under the GR dated 02.05.2011 gain a strong protective precedent against disqualification objections premised solely on that role—unless the factual matrix differs (e.g., if a Panchayat itself creates/controls the post, pays from its own funds, or confers contracting/benefit discretion).
  • Scheme design matters: The judgment signals that the legal characterization depends heavily on how government schemes allocate authority between Gram Sabha, Panchayat, and state machinery; amendments to the GR or payment/control mechanisms could change outcomes.

4) Complex Concepts Simplified

“Office of profit / place of profit”
A position that gives the holder financial gain or advantage and is sufficiently connected to the authority whose “gift or disposal” is relevant (here, the Panchayat). Courts look beyond labels and apply factors like who appoints/removes, who controls the work, and who pays.
“Salaried office” vs. “honorarium”
A salaried office typically indicates a regular employment-type relationship with structured service conditions. An honorarium, especially tied to part-time/outsourced, temporary work paid from a scheme’s administrative component, may not amount to a salaried Panchayat post.
“In the gift or disposal of the Panchayat”
The disqualifying office must be one the Panchayat can effectively “grant” (appoint into) or “dispose” (control/remove). If the Gram Sabha (not the Panchayat) is the appointing/removal authority under the governing instrument, the nexus weakens substantially.
Section 14(1)(g): “share or interest”
This targets conflict-of-interest situations: where a member benefits from Panchayat work orders, contracts, or employment under the Panchayat. Proof of a real, direct or indirect interest is required; the mere fact of doing scheme-related supportive work is not enough.
Article 227 (supervisory jurisdiction)
A High Court power to correct jurisdictional and serious legal errors by subordinate authorities/tribunals—used here to correct misapplication of Section 14 and the GR.

5) Conclusion

The judgment establishes a clear local-body governance rule: an elected Gram Panchayat member working as a “Gram Rojgar Sevak” under the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011 is not disqualified under Section 14(1)(f) or Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

Its significance lies in insisting on a structured, evidence-based disqualification analysis—grounded in the scheme’s actual appointment/remuneration/control framework—thereby preventing overbroad disqualifications that could unnecessarily exclude grassroots representatives for engaging in limited, scheme-defined support roles.