Bombay High Court
WP/959/2026 of OMPRAKASH FULCHAND YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. on 8 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 959 OF 2026
(Omprakash Fulchand Yadav Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adv. P.R. Arbat (appointed), Advocate for the Petitioner (s).
Mr. S.B. Bissa, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
Adv. M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent No.4.
CORAM :
ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATE :
OCTOBER 8, 2026.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard.
2. On 28 September 2026, we had pass the following order :- “Heard.
2. Petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents, particularly respondent No.4-Municipal Council, Gondia, to extend benefit of pension under Government Resolution dated 20.04.2022 as also the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Collector, Gondia. The direction has been also sought, based on judgment dated 02.08.2024, passed in Writ Petition Nos.4409 and 4410 of 2023.
3. The petitioner was working on daily wages as Class IV employee with effect from 16.02.1987. He was made permanent on 01.06.2022 i.e. after rendering service for almost 35 years. He is seeking pension based on the benefit of half of the service as rendered by him on daily wages.
4. In an identical matter, this Court, in the judgment referred to above, held the petitioners therein, who were also employees of respondent No. 4, entitled for pensionary benefits, in accordance with Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, by considering one-half period of their respective services rendered on daily wages. This Court then directed the respondent - Municipal Council to take necessary steps to MPBalekar 2026:BHC-NAG:13461-DB
release the pension, if the petitioners therein qualify the pensionable service.
5. Thus, similarly placed employees are granted benefit. Respondent No.3 was party to the said proceedings and even otherwise, in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. .Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Ors.; (2015) 1 SCC 347, the Municipal Council was bound to extend similar benefit to the petitioner. The same, however, has been not extended to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner, a Class IV employee, is required to approach this Court.
6. We accordingly call upon respondent No.4 to justify inaction in the matter, particularly when the earlier judgment was rendered on 02.08.2024. Respondent No.4, to also show cause as to why the cost of litigation incurred by petitioner should not be borne by him.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the case of petitioner for extending pensionary benefit is in process and is pending with the Accounts Department. He submits that the benefit will be released within one week from today and the arrears within six months. The statement is accepted.
9. Our experience, however, is that the authorities like respondent No.4 are taking action only when the employee approaches the Court. That being so, we would like to know from respondent No.4 as to why action should not be recommended against him for not extending benefits to the petitioner. Let the affidavit be filed on the points mentioned in the order within one week from today.
10. List for further consideration 08.10.2026.”
3. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the prayer made by the petitioner has already been complied with and that the pensionary benefits have been paid to the petitioner, except for the arrears. He submits that the arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within six months. The statement is accepted.
4. The fees of Adv. Priyanka R. Arbat, who is appointed from the panel of the Advocates of High Court Legal Services Sub- Committee, Nagpur, be quantified and paid as per the Rules. MPBalekar
5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE) MPBalekar Signed by: Mr. Mrunal P. Balekar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/10/2026 17:55:53