Bombay High Court
NACHIKET KESHAV PAWAR AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court directed Respondent No.3 to decide the promotion proposal within four weeks, subject to a hearing, without prejudice to the rights of Respondent No.5.
Summary
Nachiket Keshav Pawar and another filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to the State of Maharashtra to decide a proposal dated 25 July 2023 that would regularize Pawar as a Laboratory Assistant after three years of service on honorarium, with back salary from 1 September 2022. The petitioners asked the Court to order an expeditious decision on the proposal. After hearing the parties, the Court held that it could issue a writ directing Respondent No.3 to decide the proposal within four weeks, ensuring that the rights of Respondent No.5 remain unaffected. The Court fixed a hearing for the petitioner before Respondent No.3 on 7 October 2026 at 2.30 p.m. The petition was disposed of without any costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can compel the administrative authority (Respondent No.3) to decide a promotion proposal within a specified time frame
- Whether such a direction would prejudice the rights of other respondents, particularly Respondent No.5
Subjects
- writ petition
- promotion
- regular pay scale
- administrative law
- expeditious decision
- high court direction
Judgment
411- WP-12618-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12618 OF 2026
Nachiket Keshav Pawar and Anr ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
Thru Secretary and Ors ...Respondents
_______
Mr Vinayak R Kumbhar, with Rajendra B Khaire, i/b Ashwini N Bandiwadekar,
for Petitioners.
Ms Nisha M Mehra, AGP for Respondents-State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 23 SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. We have heard Mr Vinayak Kumbhar, learned counsel for the Petitioners
and the learned AGP representing the State.
2. Although there are different prayers, learned counsel for the Petitioners
presses prayer clause (b), which reads thus:-
“b] By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to immediately decide the
proposal dated 25.7.2023 [EXHIBIT-E] submitted by the Petitioner
No. 2 seeking individual approval to the Petitioner No. 1 in the
regular pay scale in the post of Laboratory Assistant, after having
completed approved service of 3 years on monthly honorarium, and
accordingly to grant such approval and thereafter to release the grant-
in-aid for payment of said salary in pay scale with effect from
01.9.2022 onwards, with all arrears.”
Page 1 of 2
Shivgan
411- WP-12618-2026.DOC
3. Considering the only relief, which is the subject matter of prayer clause (b)
is, that the proposal dated 25 th July 2023 as submitted by Petitioner No.2 be
decided by Respondent No.3 as expeditiously as possible, we are of the opinion
that in the interest of justice, the proposal be decided expeditiously and in any
event, within a period of four weeks from today in accordance with law, and after
giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.
4. Let Petitioner No.1 appear before Respondent No.3 on 7 th October 2026 at
2.30 p.m.
5. Considering the interest of justice, we were inclined to pass the aforesaid
order, as clearly, the aforesaid order would not prejudice the rights and contentions
of Respondent No.5. All contentions in that regard are expressly kept open.
6. Disposed of. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2026.09.28
15:43:17
+0530
Page 2 of 2
Shivgan
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.