Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

DHANANJAY SADASHIV GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petition is disposed of without merits because the promotion application will be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee.

Summary

The petitioner, Dhananjay Sadashiv Gaikwad, a superannuated employee, filed a writ petition seeking immediate promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, claiming he had been exonerated in departmental proceedings. He argued urgency because his superannuation date was 31 March 2026. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and Pune Municipal Corporation, informed the court that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was scheduled to hear the promotion application on 30 March 2026. The court accepted this statement and, without examining the merits of the petition, disposed of the writ on the basis that the matter would be considered by the DPC. The parties were allowed to keep their rights and contentions open for any further applications to the DPC.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to immediate promotion to Executive Engineer through a writ petition despite the pending hearing before the Departmental Promotion Committee

Subjects

  • promotion
  • departmental proceedings
  • writ petition
  • superannuation
  • Executive Engineer
  • High Court of Bombay

Judgment

                                                                           910-wp-10833-2024.doc


                      jsn
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            WRIT PETITION NO.10833 OF 2024
         Digitally
         signed by
         JITENDRA
JITENDRA SHANKAR
SHANKAR NIJASURE
NIJASURE Date:
         2026.03.27
                            Dhananjay Sadashiv Gaikwad                     ...Petitioner
         18:44:11
         +0530


                                  Versus

                            The State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary    ...Respondents
                            and Ors.

                                                           ----------
                            Mr. Sachin Kadam, for the Petitioner.
                            Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for the State – Respondent No.1.
                            Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni, with Sweta Shah for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 –
                            Pune Municipal Corporation.
                            Mr. Sumant Deshpande with Mr. Aditya Ashturkar for Respondent
                            No.5.
                                                           ----------

                                                          CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
                                                                  ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
                                                          DATE  : 27TH MARCH, 2026
                            ORDER :


                            1.          The Petition has been circulated and placed on the

                            supplementary board today.



                            2.          The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has

                            expressed urgency in view of the Petitioner being superannuated on


                                                             1/2
                                                  910-wp-10833-2024.doc

31st March, 2026. He has submitted that he has been exonerated in

the departmental proceedings and has sought for promotion to the

post of Executive Engineer.



3.             Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, the learned Counsel appearing for

the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 – Pune Municipal Corporation states on

instructions that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is

holding a hearing on 30th March, 2026. The Petitioner’s application

for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer will be considered at

the said hearing. The statement is accepted.



4.             In view of the above statement, the Writ Petition is

disposed of.



5.             We have not gone into the merits of the present Writ

Petition. The rights and contentions of the parties are kept open

including making any further application to DPC.



     [ ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. ]               [ R.I. CHAGLA J. ]




                                   2/2


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.