Bombay High Court

SANTOSH RAVINDRA PANCHAL AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed as abandoned and no relief is granted.

Summary

The petitioners, Santosh Ravindra Panchal and others, filed a contempt petition seeking payment of consequential benefits after being approved for appointment from non‑aided to aided posts. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners, and they did not prosecute the petition. The court observed that, given the passage of time without any action by the petitioners, the benefits must have already been paid. Consequently, the petition was found to be abandoned and without any surviving claim. The judges therefore disposed of the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the petition for payment of consequential benefits is maintainable in the absence of prosecution by the petitioners
Whether the petition is barred by lapse of time/abandonment

Subjects

contempt
petition dismissed
abandonment
consequential benefits
procedural default

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38023-DB

                                                                                905



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          905 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 354 OF 2020

                              Santosh Ravindra Panchal And Others
                                            VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Others
                   __________________________________________________________
                   Adv. Abhijeet Choudhari for the Petitioners - Absent
                   Ms. M. N. Ghanekar, AGP for State
                   __________________________________________________________

                                     CORAM      : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                                  VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                                     DATE       : AUGUST 20, 2026

                   PER COURT :
                   1)             None appears for the petitioners.

                   2)             The petitioners have themselves claimed that

                   they are already granted approval for their appointment

                   from non-aided to aided posts. However, the direction in

                   this petition is for paying consequential benefits.

                   3)             Since the petitioners have not prosecuted the

                   petition, by the passage of time, they must have been paid

                   the consequential benefits.

                   4)             In view of the above, nothing survives in this

                   petition, and it stands disposed of.



                   (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)            (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
                             JUDGE                            JUDGE


                   Komal Kamble                                          Page|1 of 1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…