The Bombay High Court has ruled that the appointment of Assistant Law Officers (Grade-II) cannot be treated as provisional or temporary merely because of a pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. A Division Bench comprising Justice S. M. Modak and Justice Sandeep V. Marne declared three such officers as regular employees of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and directed the civic body to consider them for promotion.
Background
The petitioners, Pallavi Khale, Neeta Jadhav, and Pooja Swapnil Yadav, were appointed as Assistant Law Officers (Grade-II) in December 2016 following a regular recruitment process. Despite completing their three-year probationary period and rendering seven years of service, the BMC treated their appointments as “provisional” or “temporary.”
This stance was based on a clause in their appointment letters stating that their service was subject to the outcome of Special Leave Petition No. 8394 of 2013 pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The SLP stems from a 2012 Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court which upheld amendments to the Bar Council of India Rules. These amendments deleted exemptions that previously allowed salaried Law Officers to represent their employers in courts. While the BMC challenged this before the Supreme Court, the apex court stayed the High Court’s judgment on March 1, 2013. Consequently, the BMC argued that the petitioners’ status depended on whether the Supreme Court eventually allows Law Officers to practice in court.
Arguments of the Parties
The Petitioners contended that they were regularly appointed through a transparent selection process and have rendered unblemished service. They argued that the clause in their appointment letters was unjustified and that the Corporation could not use the pending litigation to deny them “permanent” status or consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Law Officer.
The Corporation (MCGM/BMC) countered that the petitioners had accepted the condition that their appointments were temporary and subject to the SLP outcome. They further submitted that the petitioners had even provided undertakings to abide by the Supreme Court’s decision and not claim any equities. Additionally, the Corporation pointed out that the petitioners had unsuccessfully appeared for a direct recruitment examination for the post of Assistant Law Officer in 2023, suggesting they had no accrued right to be treated as permanent.
Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the recruitment and the duties performed by the Law Officers. It noted that the entire recruitment process—including public advertisement and merit-based testing—was followed.
The Bench observed that the petitioners had completed their three-year probation without being discontinued. Referring to the appointment orders, the Court found:
“all the terms are similar to the terms which are normally incorporated in the appointment orders of an employee which is to be appointed permanently in near future on fulfillment of those terms.”
Regarding the impact of the pending SLP, the Court noted that Assistant Law Officers perform numerous duties beyond appearing in court, such as preparing agreements, leases, and providing legal opinions. The Court remarked:
“Even if the Full Bench judgment of this Court is upheld in the Supreme Court, appointment of the Petitioners would not be automatically rendered illegal.”
The Bench emphasized that the BMC, being one of the largest corporations in India with vast developmental and infrastructure projects, continuously needs legal expertise.
Decision
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, declaring the petitioners as regular Assistant Law Officers (Grade-II) from their respective dates of appointment.
The Court held:
“After considering all the factors, we feel that the Petitioners have made out the case for treating them as having been appointed regularly. Even if it is assumed that the Corporation was justified in making appointments provisional, after passage of time the Petitioners are certainly entitled to get that relief.”
The Bench directed the Corporation to grant the petitioners all service benefits entitled to permanent employees and to consider them for promotion to the post of Assistant Law Officers as and when the occasion arises, noting they have completed the eligibility service of five years.
Case Details
Case Title: Pallavi Khale & Ors. Vs. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 714 OF 2024
Bench: Justice S. M. Modak and Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Date: 24th APRIL 2026
