Bombay High Court
SHRI SATISHKUMAR GAYAPRASAD GUPTAversusTHE MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court set aside the punishment order dated 4 June 2011 because the show‑cause notice based on the now‑quashed Regulation No. 90 could not survive.
Summary
The petitioner, Shri Satishkumar Gayaprasad Gupta, filed a writ petition seeking payment of all consequential service benefits, including back wages, gratuity, and leave encashment, after his superannuation on 30 June 2011. The respondent, MSEDCL, produced documents showing that certain benefits such as a gratuity advance of Rs. 3,48,720 and provident fund contributions had already been paid. The petitioner contended that a substantial portion of his final gratuity (two‑thirds) and leave encashment remained unpaid and requested the court to direct payment. The court noted that a prior Division Bench judgment in Praveen s/o Prabhakarrao Jawale v. MSEDCL had quashed Regulation No. 90, rendering the show‑cause notice and the subsequent punishment order of 4 June 2011 invalid. Consequently, the court set aside the punishment order and ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding dues within six weeks upon receipt of details, while disposing of the writ petition without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the show‑cause notice issued under Regulation No. 90 is valid after the regulation was quashed.
- Whether the punishment order dated 4 June 2011 is sustainable in view of the quashing of Regulation No. 90.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the remaining consequential service benefits, including the balance of gratuity and leave encashment.
Subjects
- consequential service benefits
- gratuity
- leave encashment
- superannuation
- show cause notice
- Regulation No. 90
- punishment order
- writ petition
- MSEDCL
Judgment
37. WP-4121-2011.doc
Shri. Satishkumar vs. MSEDCL & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4121 OF 2011
Shri Satishkumar Gayaprasad Gupta .. Petitioner
V/s.
The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Ltd. And Ors. .. Respondents
______________________________________
Mr. Saurabh Bachhawat a/w Kaushik Puranik for Petitioner.
Mr. Dheer Sampat i/b M V Kini & Co. for Respondents (MSEDCL).
_______________________________________
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.
DATE : 10th JULY 2026
P.C.:
1. On the previous date, viz., 25th June 2026, this Court had noted that in the
prayer clause of the petition, the Petitioner has sought for payment of all
consequential service benefits, including full back wages and retirement
benefits, after the Petitioner having attained superannuation on 30 th June
2011.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has tendered
documents, which are taken on record and marked “X” collectively. Relying
Digitally signed
on these documents, he states that the Petitioner has received the
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM SHESHRAO
SHESHRAO GADHAVEPATIL
GADHAVEPATIL Date:
2026.07.10
19:02:19 +0530
consequential service benefits, which include an amount of Rs. 3,48,720/-
under the sub-head of gratuity advance, and which is borne out from the
Page 1 of 3
-------------------------------------
Order dated 10th July 2026
37. WP-4121-2011.doc
Shri. Satishkumar vs. MSEDCL & Ors.
noting at page 4 of these documents which are marked “X” collectively,
dated 19th December 2009.
3. It is further stated that the Petitioner’s dues of Rs. 30,65,180/- towards
provident fund had also been sanctioned vide letter dated 15th August 2011
and paid vide CV No. 48 dated 1st October 2011.
4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has sought for time to verify from his
client as to whether his client’s has been paid all consequential service
benefits.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has taken instructions and
states that there is still certain consequential service benefits which are
outstanding, namely, 2/3rd of the final service gratuity, which itself is borne
out from the document, viz., communication dated 14 th August 2022
addressed by the Executor Engineer of the Respondent no. 1 to the Chief
Engineer of Respondent no. 1. He further states that dues towards leave
encashment are also yet to be paid by Respondent no. 1. The Petitioner shall
provide the details of the outstanding dues to the Respondent no. 1 for
payment.
6. Mr. Dheer Sampat, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent no. 1, states
on instructions that upon the Petitioner providing the outstanding dues
payable to him, the Respondent no. 1 shall make the payment within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such details. The statement is
Page 2 of 3
-------------------------------------
Order dated 10th July 2026
37. WP-4121-2011.doc
Shri. Satishkumar vs. MSEDCL & Ors.
accepted.
7. The parties are agreeable that in view of the order of Division Bench of this
Court in Praveen s/o Prabhakarrao Jawale vs. MSEDCL & Anr. 1 whereby
Regulation No. 90 has been quashed, the show cause notice issued to the
Petitioner, which has invoked the said Regulation and which forms the basis
of the final punishment order dated 4th June 2011 would not survive.
8. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned punishment order dated 4th June
2011.
9. The Writ Petition is disposed of in view of the above terms. There shall be
no order as to costs.
10. We make it clear that the above payment made by Respondent no. 1 to the
Petitioner shall not be subject to the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. ) ( R.I. CHAGLA J. )
Shubham Gadhavepatil
1 2014 (1) Mh.L.J. 313
Page 3 of 3
-------------------------------------
Order dated 10th July 2026
Checking your session…