Bombay High Court
NARAYAN BABURAO JADHAV AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed due to gross delay and laches.
Summary
The petitioners, appointed as Assistants to Extension Officers in 1967 and later promoted to Junior Engineers, sought seniority and a higher pay scale under the Government Resolution dated 16 April 1984, which had been granted to similarly situated employees. They filed a writ petition in 2026 after their representations to the Zilla Parishad, Dhule were rejected on 30 July 2025, claiming the denial affected their pension. The Court examined the applicability of the 1984 Resolution, noting that the petitioners were aware of it long ago but remained silent until after retirement, and that no earlier grievance was recorded. It held that the cause of action arose at the time the resolution became effective, and the petitioners failed to pursue it for about 40 years, constituting gross delay and laches. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, refusing to grant the requested seniority and pay benefits.
Issues considered
- When are the petitioners entitled to seniority and pay scale benefits under the Government Resolution dated 16 April 1984?
- Is the writ petition barred by the doctrine of delay and laches?
- Does the cause of action arise at the time of the resolution or only upon the 2025 rejection of the representation?
Subjects
- seniority
- pay scale
- government resolution
- service rules
- delay
- laches
- cause of action
- writ of mandamus
- pension
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:13112-DB
1 913WP239.2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 239 OF 2026
Narayan s/o Baburao Jadhav & Ors. ….Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
……..
Mr. D. R. Irale Patil and Mr. S. D. Irale Patil – Adv. for the Petitioners
Mr. R. S. Wani – AGP for the State
……...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATED : 24TH MARCH, 2026
FINAL ORDER [Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.] : -
1. The present petition has been filed praying for the setting
aside of the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 issued by Respondent
No. 2, and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing Respondent
No. 2 to grant the petitioners the benefit of seniority and the pay scale of
Rs. 150/- to Rs. 325/- from their respective dates of appointment as
Assistants to Junior Engineers, thereby conferring upon them the status
of Sectional Engineers along with all consequential benefits.
2. The learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of
Respondent No. 1. There is no necessity to issue notice to Respondent
No. 2.
3. The petitioners contend that they were appointed to the
post of Assistant to Extension Officer (Works) under an order dated
2 913WP239.2026.odt
19.01.1967. Over a period of time, they were absorbed and promoted as
Junior Engineers in the same Zilla Parishad, Dhule. The petitioners were
governed by the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Service
(Recruitment) Rules, 1967. Similarly situated persons thereafter made
representations to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Aurangabad, seeking the benefit of seniority from the date of their
appointment, pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 16.04.1984.
The Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, had sought clarification from the
Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, which was then reflected in the
communication dated 25.04.1986. Thereafter, the order was passed by
the Chief Executive Office, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, on 11.05.1986
granting benefits to the similarly situated persons. The petitioners also
invited the attention of Respondent No. 2 to the demi-official letter
dated 25.04.1988 issued by the Assistant Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Aurangabad, whereby further clarification was provided and
the benefits were extended to other employees. However, Respondent
No. 2 i.e. Zilla Parishad, Dhule, did not extend the said benefits to the
petitioners. Now the effect thereof is that similarly situated Engineers,
namely, Shri Akhade and three others, have been considered as Junior
Engineers from 25.08.1988. Taking into consideration all these aspects,
the petitioners made a common representation to Respondent No. 2 on
07.05.2018 and subsequently on 12.01.2024. It was also brought to the
3 913WP239.2026.odt
notice of Respondent No. 2 that, upon completion of seven years of
service, the petitioners ought to have been placed in the pay scale of
Junior Engineers, and that similarly situated persons in other
departments of the Zilla Parishad are receiving the same benefit.
However, Respondent No. 2, by communication dated 30.07.2025,
rejected the representation on the ground that no such provision exists
under the Recruitment Rules.
4. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has taken us
through all the documents and submits that, in view of the Government
Resolution dated 16.04.1984, the benefits were granted to persons who
were already in service as Assistants to the Extension Officer upon
completion of their seven years of service. The petitioners had been
pursuing the matter with the office for the grant of such benefits, and
when similarly situated persons were receiving the same, the same could
not have been denied to the petitioners.
5. The fact to be noted is that the Petitioners, who were
appointed in January 1967, seek implementation of the Government
Resolution dated 16.04.1984 in their favour, which pertains to the
up-gradation of their posts and the applicability of the pay scale to such
upgraded posts. The petitioners before this Court are presently aged
about 78 to 79 years. Considering the age of superannuation as 58
years, they would have retired approximately 20 years ago i.e. around
2005-06.
4 913WP239.2026.odt
6. When the petitioners seek the implementation of the
Government Resolution dated 16.04.1984, the obvious question that
arises is that, when the said Resolution came into force, it is not alleged
that they were unaware of it. If that be so, the question is why they
remained silent until their retirement.
7. Thereafter, either prior to or immediately following their
retirement, the 5th Pay Commission was implemented, and subsequently,
further Pay Commissions were also implemented. Their pension would
have been revised from time to time, however, it appears that at no
point prior to their retirement did they raise any grievance in this
regard. There is no documentary evidence to indicate that, prior to
07.05.2018, they made any such attempt while in service. A perusal of
the said communication, particularly the references therein, does not
disclose any earlier representations. Even in the said communication,
they have not stated that they had claimed the benefit under the
Government Resolution at any earlier point of time, even orally.
8. An employee is expected to be diligent with regard to the
fixation of pay and, ultimately, in fixation of pension. In view of the
aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that there is a delay of about 40
years, therefore, the petition suffers from delay and laches.
9. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has vehemently
submitted that pension gives rise to a continuing cause of action, and
5 913WP239.2026.odt
that the non-grant of the said benefit affects the pension amount.
Therefore, according to him, the petition is not barred by delay and
laches, especially as the representation was rejected only on 30.07.2025.
10. We do not agree with the said submissions. The cause of
action arises immediately when the relevant circumstances exist or
emerge. If, according to the petitioners, they were entitled to benefits
under the Government Resolution dated 16.04.1984, then the cause of
action arose at that time itself. The Petitioners have not shown any
reason for their inaction over such a long period. The claim does not
relate to pension as a continuing cause of action. The difference in pay
scale was never claimed or calculated for the petitioners based on the
Government Resolution dated 16.04.1984. Therefore, they ought to
have been vigilant and approached the appropriate authority in time.
11. Since the Petition suffers from gross delay and latches, the
Writ Petition is dismissed.
[HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
SG Punde
Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/03/2026 15:01:10
Checking your session…