Bombay High Court

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER MSEDCL LATUR AND ANOTHERversusPRABHAKAR RANGNATH AWADE

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The Industrial Court’s order granting salary for the suspension period is upheld, but interest on the amount is denied.

Summary

The petitioner, Superintending Engineer MSEDCL Latur, challenged an order of the Industrial Court, Latur dated 04‑04‑2016 which allowed a complaint filed by the respondent, Prabhakar Rangnath Awade, and directed payment of salary for his suspension period (02‑04‑2004 to 18‑05‑2006). The respondent had been suspended, tried and acquitted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and later subjected to a departmental inquiry that treated the suspension as punishment. He claimed salary for the suspension period on the ground that similarly situated employees had been granted such benefits under a circular dated 26‑12‑2008. The High Court observed that the circular indeed applied to similarly situated employees and, applying the principle of parity, upheld the Industrial Court’s order regarding salary but modified it to deny any interest on the amount. The respondent agreed not to claim interest. Consequently, the petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent is entitled to salary for the period of suspension despite the criminal acquittal and departmental punishment.
Whether interest is payable on the delayed salary payment.
Whether the principle of parity, based on a circular granting benefits to similarly situated employees, applies to the respondent.

Legislation cited

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Subjects

Industrial Court
suspension
salary entitlement
parity principle
interest
Prevention of Corruption Act
departmental inquiry
civil service

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:13601
                                                                             26.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         26 WRIT PETITION NO. 12322 OF 2016

                 The Superintending Engineer Msedcl Latur And Another
                                       VERSUS
                              Prabhakar Rangnath Awade

                                            …..
          Mr. Gaikwad Anil M., Advocate for the Petitioner
          Mr. R. D. Biradar, Advocate for Respondent
                                            …..

                                       CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE       : 24.03.2026


          PER COURT :

          1.    Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.


          2.    By the present petition, petitioner assails the order dated
          04.04.2016 passed by Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP)
          No.18/2013, whereby the complaint filed by respondent came to be
          allowed.


          2.    The learned counsel Mr. Gaikwad for the petitioners vehemently
          submits that the Industrial Court, Latur committed an error in allowing
          the complaint filed by the respondent. He submits that a criminal case
          under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was instituted against
          the respondent–employee. The respondent was kept under suspension
          from 03.04.2004 till his retirement. Thereafter, his suspension was
          revoked and a departmental inquiry was initiated. He further submits
          that the respondent was tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act,

                                              1
                                                                     26.odt


1988 and was acquitted. The State Government appeal against
acquittal, but the acquittal was confirmed by this Court. In the
departmental inquiry, punishment was imposed and the suspension
period was treated as punishment coupled with punishment of
witholding one yearly increment. The respondent did not challenge
that order. However, after four years of retirement, he filed a complaint
before the Industrial Court only on the ground that some other
employees were granted benefits. Therefore, he submits that the
Industrial Court ought not to have directed the petitioner to pay salary
for the suspension period i.e. from 02.04.2004 to 18.05.2006.


3.    Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Biradar for the respondent
supports the order passed by the Industrial Court. He submits that
other similarly situated employees, including one Shivaji Shinde, were
granted similar benefits. He further relies upon the circular issued by
the petitioner dated 26.12.2008 and submits that the said circular
applies to the respondent. Therefore, according to him, the Industrial
Court has rightly passed the order.


4.    Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
after going through the record, it is not in dispute that some similarly
situated employees who were suspended were granted salary for the
suspension period in terms of the circular dated 26.12.2008. This
aspect has been considered by the Industrial Court. In view of the fact
that similarly situated employees were granted benefits under the said
circular, upholding the principle of parity, I am not inclined to
entertain the present petition.




                                      2
                                                                     26.odt


5.      It is, however, made clear that the respondent–employee shall
not be entitled to interest on the said amount. To that extent, the order
dated 04.04.2016 passed by the Industrial Court stands modified.



6.      The learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submits
that the respondent will not claim any interest on the delayed
payment.



7.      In view thereof, the present petition stands disposed of.



8.      Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.




                                       [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]


Sameer/March-2026




                                       3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…