Bombay High Court

ADVOCATE GAJANAN SHRIRAM BEDREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The review application does not meet the parameters of Section 114 CPC and is therefore not maintainable.

Summary

The applicant filed a review application seeking reconsideration of the High Court's order dated 01‑07‑2026 which dismissed his 2014 writ petition. He argued that two Government circulars dated 09‑02‑2018 and 07‑03‑2018, which pertain to the continuation of law officers appointed on contract, were not before the Court and that a later judgment (Writ Petition No. 5831 of 2018) had considered those circulars. The State, represented by an Additional Government Pleader, contended that the Court had already examined all relevant aspects and that no ground for review existed. The Court held that the review application did not satisfy the criteria of Section 114 of the CPC and therefore could not be entertained, but clarified that the Government remains free to consider the applicant’s claim under the 07‑03‑2018 circular. Consequently, the review application was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the review application under Section 114 CPC is maintainable on the ground that certain Government circulars were not considered earlier.
Whether the Court can intervene to direct the Government to consider the applicant’s claim in view of the circular dated 07‑03‑2018.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 114

Subjects

review
Section 114 CPC
government circulars
contract law officers
continuation policy
writ petition
dismissal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39732-DB



                                                    1
                                                                          7-ra-147-2026

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 147 OF 2026
                                          IN WP/2982/2014

                                  Advocate Gajanan Shriram Bedre
                                              VERSUS
                       The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Another
                                                 ...
                Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Applicant
                Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent-State
                                                 …..
                                     CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                                 AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
                                        DATED     : 31ST AUGUST, 2026

                P.C. :-

                .         Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned AGP for

                respondent-State.

                2.        The Review Application is filed seeking review of the order

                passed by this Court dated 01.07.2026 in Writ Petition No.2982 of

                2014 whereby this Court dismissed the petition in view of the

                judgment cited before this Court i.e. The State of Maharashtra and

                Others Vs. Anita and Another, (2016) 8 SC 293.

                3.        Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that when the

                petition was disposed of, the circular dated 09.02.2018 and the

                subsequent circular dated 07.03.2018 were not brought to the notice
                                   2
                                                          7-ra-147-2026

of this Court. He submits that by the circular dated 07.03.2018, the

Government decided to consider the cases for continuation of Law

Officers who were appointed on contract basis, and the circular dated

09.02.2018 was stayed by the subsequent circular.

4.    He also relies upon the judgment in Writ Petition No.5831 of

2018 (Nagpur) dated 04.06.2019. He fairly accepts that in the said

judgment, the case of Anita supra was not considered. He further

submits that however, this Court had considered circulars dated

07.03.2018 and 09.02.2018. The circular dated 09.02.2018 was

specifically issued in view of the judgment in the case of Anita supra.

He thus submits that these vital facts were not brought to the notice

of this Court. He further submits that since the petition is dismissed,

now the Government will not consider the claim of the petitioner,

though there is a policy of the government to review its policy

decision.

5.    Learned AGP however opposes the application. He submits that

this Court has already considered all the aspects in the matter. No

ground for review is made out.

6.    Considering the scope of a Review Application, this Court does

not find that the application meets the parameters of Section 114 of
                                    3
                                                            7-ra-147-2026

the Civil Procedure Code. However, considering the fact that the

judgment of this Court may come in the way of the Government and

the applicant while considering the case of continuation, it is clarified

that it is open for the Government to consider the case of applicant

and the cases of persons like applicant in view of circular dated

07.03.2018.

7.      With this clarification, Review Application stands disposed of.




     [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J]                [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

Rushikesh/2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…