Bombay High Court
WP/8675/2026 of SUKHDEO KISANJI KOLHE AND OTHERS. Vs THE STATE OF MAHA., THR. PRINCIPAL SECY. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT. AND ORS. on 15 October 2026
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF
112 WP-8675-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.8675 OF 2026
[Sukhdeo Kisanji Kolhe and others .vs. The State of Maharashtra and others]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri. Sandip B. Sontakke, Advocate for Petitioners.
Ms. H. N Jaipurkar, AGP for Respondents/State.
CORAM
: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATED
: 15
th OCTOBER, 2026.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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 Shri. Sandip B. Sontakke, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits, on instructions, that the petitioners would press Prayer Clause ‘C’, which is reproduced herein below from the first Petition : “C) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature. The Respondent no.4 may kindly be directed to decide the Proposal submitted by Respondent no.5 Exh-'C' for Grant of Advance Increments to petitioners with all consequential benefits.”
3. Since the petitioners have prayed for a direction that the proposal submitted by respondent No.5 to respondent No.4, be adjudicated upon by respondent No.5, we are not required to go into the merits of the proposal submitted by respondent No.5 to respondent No.4. Suffice it to say that this Court (Coram Mangesh S. Patil and Sandeep V. Marne, JJ.) have delivered an order on 06.09.2022 in WP No.9591/2019 filed by Sayed Shoukat Ali Osman 2026:BHC-NAG:13986-DB
112 WP-8675-2026.odt
Ali and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others along with similar matters, by relying upon the judgment delivered on 30.08.2022 in Review Application (Civil) No. 170/2022 in WP No.13760/2019 (The State of Maharashtra and another vs. Rupchand Narayan Shinde and Others). It is observed in paragraph No.6 of the order dated 06.09.2022, as under : “6. We, therefore, dispose of the Petitions by declaring that the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 would apply prospectively. Petitioners, who became due and eligible for grant of advance increments for outstanding work prior to 24.08.2017, would be entitled to grant of the same. Such of the Petitioners who are yet to be granted the actual benefits of advance increments may be granted such benefits. In respect of those Petitioners who were already granted advance increments and in respect of whom recoveries have been effected or sought to be effected, such action of recovery is set aside. Consequential benefits be paid to respective Petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today.”
4. In view of the above, we direct respondent No.4 to decide the proposal tendered by respondent No.5 at Exh. ‘C’ as expeditiously as possible and in any case within 60 days.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) TAMBE Signed by: Mr. Ashish Tambe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 19/10/2026 10:44:56