Bombay High Court
PRASANNA BHALCHANDRA VAIDYA AND OTHERSversusPRESIDENT SECRETARY BHARTIYA SANSKRITI SANWARDHAN SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
The Court found no basis to vacate the interim stay, declined to grant salary or 7th Pay benefits in the writ petition, dismissed the contempt application, and disposed of both civil applications while permitting independent claims for 7th Pay benefits.
Summary
The applicant, Prasanna Bhalchandra Vaidya, was terminated in April 2022, successfully appealed and was reinstated in November 2022 with salary as per the 6th Pay Commission. He filed two civil applications seeking unpaid salary, back wages, and the benefit of the 7th Pay Commission, as well as a contempt petition. The High Court had earlier stayed the payment of back wages and the applicant sought to vacate this interim relief. The Court held that there is no ground to vacate the stay, that claims for unpaid salary and 7th Pay benefits lie outside the jurisdiction of the writ petition and must be pursued in the appropriate forum, and that the contempt application lacks merit. Consequently, both civil applications were dismissed, but the parties were allowed to claim 7th Pay benefits independently, and the interim stay remains in force.
Issues considered
- Whether the interim stay of back‑wage payment should be vacated
- Whether the writ petition can grant relief for unpaid salary and 7th Pay Commission benefits
- Whether a contempt of court application is maintainable in these circumstances
- Whether the applicant can claim arrears of salary under the 7th Pay Commission after reinstatement
Subjects
- interim relief
- stay order
- reinstatement
- salary arrears
- 7th Pay Commission
- contempt of court
- civil application
- public exchequer
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:12173
1 903-CA.12379-24 & ors.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH
AT AURANGABAD
903 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12379 OF 2024
IN WP/5790/2023
PRASANNA BHALCHANDRA VAIDYA
VERSUS
PRESIDENT
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11296 OF 2023 IN
WP/5790/2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5790 OF 2023
...
Advocate for Applicant/s : Mr. Prasad Bhalchandra Vaidya.
AGP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. N. D. Raje.
Advocate for Petitioner in WP : Mr. S. V. Dixit.
Advocate for Respondent No.2 in WP : Mr. S. S. Agrawal.
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 18.03.2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard both sides.
2. In pursuance of the earlier order, learned AGP has
tendered on record a communication dated 18.03.2026
addressed by Joint Director to the respondent/Principal,
clarifying that applicant/employee is not entitled to any relief
from August 2015 to 2022 from the public exchequer.
3. Applicant was terminated on 06.04.2022. He had
preferred appeal. It was allowed on 15.11.2022. He was
2 903-CA.12379-24 & ors.odt
reinstated on 16.11.2022. He is working as Office
Superintendent and getting salary after reinstatement as per
recommendations of 6th pay commission.
4. This Court granted stay vide order dated 09.06.2023 to
payment of back wages i.e. from 06.04.2022 to 16.11.2022 for
the period of seven (7) months and above. I find that no case
is made out for vacating interim relief. The writ petition itself
can be decided finally at the admission stage. Till then, interim
relief needs to be continued.
5. The prayers in respect of Civil Application No.11296 of
2023 pertain to unpaid salary, extending of benefit of
recommendation of 7th pay and back wages from April 2022 to
October 2022. Civil Application No.12379 of 2024 pertains to
vacating of interim relief, extending the benefit of 7 th pay
recommendation and action for contempt against erring
respondents.
6. I have already clarified that no case is made out for
vacating interim relief. The prayers for unpaid salary and the
benefit of recommendation of 7 th pay would not fall within the
3 903-CA.12379-24 & ors.odt
realm of this Court. Applicant has independent, alternate and
efficacious remedy to ventilate these grievances. It would be
open for him to approach appropriate forum including the
claim for recommendations of 7th pay commission. The claim
for back wages cannot be dealt with because interim stay is
operating in the matter. I am not inclined to grant any relief for
action of contempt of Court. I find no merit in both civil
applications.
7. This Court cannot ignore the approach of the Joint
Director which is surfaced by communication dated
18.03.2026 addressed to the Principal. Applicant is already
receiving the salary as per recommendation of 6 th pay
commission. He is claiming benefit of recommendations of 7 th
pay commission which needs to be dealt with independently
and the pendency of the writ petition and interim relief
granted by this Court would not be impediment. The orders
cited in the communication in the context of decision of Appeal
No.BAMU-12 of 2016 are thoroughly misconceived. It would
be suffice to say that if the Joint Director comes across
proposal either for unpaid salary or for benefit of
4 903-CA.12379-24 & ors.odt
recommendations of 7th pay commission it shall be dealt with
independently.
8. Considering the approval given for extending benefit of
7th pay commission to the applicant it would be open for the
applicant and the management to claim arrears of salary
payable after the reinstatement. As the applicant is working on
an aided post, the arrears will have to be borne from the public
exchequer itself.
9. Both Civil applications are disposed of with a liberty to
the applicant as well as management to claim benefit of
recommendations of 7th pay commission payable after
reinstatement.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
...
vmk/-
Checking your session…