Bombay High Court
Prasanna Bhalchandra VaidyaversusPresident
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
The Court dismissed the civil applications, upheld the interim stay, and directed that claims for 7th Pay benefits be pursued independently.
Summary
The applicant, a former Office Superintendent, was terminated on 6 April 2022, appealed, and was reinstated on 16 November 2022 with salary as per the 6th Pay Commission. The High Court had earlier stayed payment of back wages from the date of termination to reinstatement. The applicant filed two civil applications seeking unpaid salary, extension of the 7th Pay Commission benefits, and contempt of court. The Court held that there was no ground to vacate the interim stay, that the claims for unpaid salary and 7th Pay benefits fall outside its jurisdiction and must be pursued in the appropriate forum, and that no contempt action was warranted. Consequently, both civil applications were dismissed, while the stay order remains in force, and the applicant may independently claim any arrears arising from the 7th Pay Commission after reinstatement.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of vacating the interim stay on payment of back wages.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to unpaid salary and benefits under the 7th Pay Commission.
- The maintainability of a contempt of court application against the respondents.
- The jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the civil applications seeking salary arrears.
Subjects
- interim relief
- stay order
- reinstatement
- back wages
- 7th Pay Commission
- civil application
- contempt of court
- public exchequer
- employee rights
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:12171
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…