Bombay High Court
HARSHAL BALKRUSHNA BHADANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the salary stoppage was unlawful and ordered its immediate release while issuing notice to the respondents.
Summary
A group of writ petitions filed by various petitioners challenged a communication dated 9 March 2026 issued by the Commissioner of Education, Pune, which had stopped their salaries. The petitioners argued that the salary stoppage was unlawful and sought its immediate release. The Court noted a similar decision in Shrikant Ganpatrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2026 DGLS (Bom) 1507) where relief was granted. It issued notice to the respondents, waived service for respondents 1 to 6, and permitted private service for respondents 7 and 8. The Court directed the respondents to release the petitioners' salaries that had been halted from 9 March 2026, granting interim relief while the matter proceeds.
Issues considered
- Whether the salary stoppage imposed by the Commissioner of Education is lawful pending adjudication of the writ petitions
- Whether notice should be issued to the respondents in the writ petitions
Subjects
- writ petition
- salary release
- Commissioner of Education
- interim relief
- service of notice
Judgment
{1} wp10249-26.doc
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.10249 OF 2026
Kalyani Rahul Mahajan PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent - State
....…
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.10253 OF 2026
Gaurav Sunil Patil PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. M. K. Goyanka, AGP for Respondent - State
....…
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.10254 OF 2026
Gaurav Dilip Bhangale PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent - State
....…
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.10264 OF 2026
Harshal Balkrushna Bhangale PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for Respondent - State
....…
{2} wp10249-26.doc
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.10268 OF 2026
Arti Pradip Patil PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. M. K. Goyanka, AGP for Respondent - State
....…
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.10272 OF 2026
Bhupendra Sanjay Paramar PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N. S. Tekale, AGP for Respondent - State
....…
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.10273 OF 2026
Vilas Gokul Chavhan PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondent - State
....…
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.10274 OF 2026
Digambar Vasant Sonwane PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for Respondent - State
....…
AND
{3} wp10249-26.doc
WRIT PETITION NO.10281 OF 2026
Dipak Hiraman Patil PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondent - State
....…
[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.]
DATE : 17th AUGUST, 2026
ORDER :
1. These Petitions challenge communication dated 9 th March,
2026, issued by Respondent No.2 – Commissioner of Education,
Pune.
2. According to the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, in
similar set of circumstances, Nagpur Bench in “Shrikant
Ganpatrao Pawar V/s State of Maharashtr” 2026 DGLS (Bom)
1507 has allowed the Petition.
3. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 15 th
September, 2026.
4. Learned AGPs waive service for Respondents No.1 to 6.
5. In addition to Court process, the Petitioners are permitted
to serve Respondents No. 7 and 8 privately, as per rules.
{4} wp10249-26.doc
6. In the meanwhile, the Respondents are directed to release
the salary of the Petitioners, which is stopped from 9 th March,
2026.
[ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
drp/wp10249-26.doc
Checking your session…