Bombay High Court
BHUPENDRA KASHINATH AABHANE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH TIS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petitions are allowed, directing the concerned Education Officer to verify eligibility under the Government Resolution dated 29‑02‑2024 and to grant the one‑step pay‑scale and arrears to eligible petitioners.
Summary
A large number of writ petitions were filed by employees of Zilla Parishads seeking the benefit of the Ekstar (one‑step promotional) pay‑scale applicable to staff serving in tribal and PESA areas, based on Government Resolutions dated 06‑08‑2002, 14‑08‑2008 and 29‑02‑2024. The petitioners argued that the earlier resolutions should apply to them and that they were entitled to back‑pay of the one‑step scale from the date of their appointment. The State contended that the 2002 resolution was intended only for government servants and not for Zilla Parishad employees. The Court examined prior judgments, notably Hiralal Jagannath Bawa v. State of Maharashtra (W.P. No. 8824/2021) and its own recent order in W.P. No. 13842/2025, and held that the latest resolution (29‑02‑2024) governs the matter, subject to eligibility verification. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petitions, directing the Education Officer to scrutinise each petitioner’s records within 30 days, grant the one‑step pay‑scale and arrears where eligible, and provide a hearing for those found ineligible, with further remedial rights preserved.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the Government Resolution dated 06‑08‑2002 (and subsequent resolutions) to Zilla Parishad employees.
- Whether employees posted in tribal/PESA areas are entitled to the Ekstar one‑step promotional pay‑scale and related arrears.
- Whether the Court must order automatic grant of benefits or require eligibility scrutiny as per the 29‑02‑2024 resolution.
Subjects
- Ekstar
- one‑step promotional pay scale
- tribal area
- PESA
- government resolution
- Zilla Parishad employees
- salary arrears
- writ petition
- eligibility scrutiny
- public service
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:21027-DB
-1-
wp1348.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
10 WRIT PETITION NO. 1348 OF 2026
Prashant Nimbajirao Bagul & others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
…..
11 WRIT PETITION NO. 1358 OF 2026
Sushma Manish Shah & others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
…..
56 WRIT PETITION NO. 4885 OF 2026
Pralhad Jagnnath Rajbhoj & others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
….
57 WRIT PETITION NO. 4886 OF 2026
Sanjay Dhudku Patil & others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
….
58 WRIT PETITION NO. 4887 OF 2026
Hansraj Bansilal Patil & others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
….
59 WRIT PETITION NO. 4888 OF 2026
Kailash Santosh Patil & others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
60 WRIT PETITION NO. 4889 OF 2026
Manisha Ramdas Borse & others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
….
61 WRIT PETITION NO. 4890 OF 2026
Bhupendra Kashinath Aabhane & another ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
-2-
wp1348.26.odt
62 WRIT PETITION NO. 4891 OF 2026
Magan Shankar Rathod & others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
…..
63 WRIT PETITION NO. 4892 OF 2026
Shashikant Ramdas Patil & others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
…..
64 WRIT PETITION NO. 4893 OF 2026
Vipul Suresh Navale & others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
….
65 WRIT PETITION NO. 4894 OF 2026
Pratik Sukhadeo Gavit & another ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
…..
66 WRIT PETITION NO. 4895 OF 2026
Ravikant Suga Valvi & others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
…..
67 WRIT PETITION NO. 4900 OF 2026
Girish Subhash Patil ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
…..
68 WRIT PETITION NO. 4904 OF 2026
Pankajkumar Harichandra Sali & others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
…..
69 WRIT PETITION NO. 4905 OF 2026
Narendra Motilal Nukte & others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
…..
70 WRIT PETITION NO. 4906 OF 2026
Sandhya Sakaharam Patel & others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
-3-
wp1348.26.odt
…..
WRIT PETITION NO. 261 OF 2026
Ratna Magan Bhamare & others .. Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others .. Respondents
…..
WRIT PETITION NO. 5245 OF 2026
Hemangi Shaligram Patil & others .. Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others .. Respondents
…..
WRIT PETITION NO. 5246 OF 2026
Dattatraya Irbaji Gurupwar & others .. Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others .. Respondents
…..
WRIT PETITION NO. 5249 OF 2026
Anjali Gajanan Pampatwar & others .. Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others .. Respondents
…..
WRIT PETITION NO. 5250 OF 2026
Pankaj Yadav Hodgar & others .. Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others .. Respondents
…..
WRIT PETITION NO. 5244 OF 2026
Harsing Sona Pawara & others .. Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others .. Respondents
…..
Mr. J. R. Shah, Mr. Y. B. Bolkar, Mr. K. U. Choudhari, Mr. M. R.
Suryawanshi, Mr. E. S. Murge, Advocates for Petitioners in respective
petitions.
Mr. A. B. Girase, GP, Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl. GP, and Mr. R. S. Wani,
Mr. A. M. Phule, Mr. V. M. Kagne, Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Ms. N. B.
Kamble, AGPs for Respondent/State in respective petitions.
Mr. R. N. Jain, Advocate for Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar and Primary
Education Officer, in Writ Petition Nos. 4885/2026, 4886/2026,
4889/2026, 4890/2026, 4891/2026, 4892/2026, 4893/2026,
4895/2026, 4900/2026 and 4904/2026.
-4-
wp1348.26.odt
CORAM :SMT VIBHA KANKANWADI
& AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
DATE : 8th MAY, 2026.
PER COURT :
1. In these petitions, the Petitioners have prayed for the directions
to the Respondents/authorities to give/grant the benefit of Ekstar
(One step promotional pay scale) under scheme of G.R. dated
06.08.2002 and 29.02.2024 from the date of appointment of the
Petitioners in tribal area and further direction to pay the salary with
arrears to the Petitioners by adding one step pay promotional pay
scale.
2. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
for the respective sides and we have perused the series of orders
passed by this Court in favour of similarly situated Petitioners, which
have been annexed to the petition.
3. In view of the above, we do not find any such circumstance,
which would convince us to take a different view.
4. Learned GP vehemently submitted that the Government
Resolution on which the Petitioners are relying i.e. Government
Resolution dated 06.08.2002 was applicable to the Government
-5-
wp1348.26.odt
servants and it was not made applicable to the Zilla Parishad
employees at that time. Without considering whether the
Government Resolutions are applicable to Zilla Parishad employees
or not, the concerned officers are now passing the order in view of the
orders passed by this Court. Further, when the employees like
Petitioners are employed by the private institution wherein they do
not have any school beyond PESA/tribal area, then the said
resolution will not be applicable. A clarification was issued by the
Government by Resolution dated 14.08.2008.
5. The learned Advocates representing the respective parties in
those cases (orders which have been annexed to the petition) have
clearly stated that the order passed by this Court at the Principal
Bench, in Writ Petition No. 8824 of 2021 (Hiralal Jagannath Bawa
and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), dated
21.12.2021, is applicable to all such cases.
6. Now, it is to be noted that when this Court had passed the
order in Writ Petition No. 13842/2025, a care was taken to give
direction that the concerned officer should consider the Government
Resolution. This Court had clearly indicated that the scrutiny will
have to be done as per the Government Resolution dated 29.02.2024.
-6-
wp1348.26.odt
Certainly, then the latest Government Resolution would consider the
Government Resolution dated 14.08.2008 also. Further, this Court
in any of the orders has not given direction that the proposals of the
Petitioners or similarly situated persons should be allowed without
scrutiny. Only after those persons are found eligible then only the
action as contemplated under the Government Resolution was
required to be undertaken. Therefore, in our opinion, all the
instructions are very much clear which require no deviation.
7. In view of the above, writ petitions stand allowed in the
following terms :-
i. Respondent/Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, shall scrutinize the records of these Petitioners
and the places at which they are deployed for performing
their duties, within a period of 30 days from today,
considering the Government Resolution dated 29.02.2024
and/or any other relevant Government Resolution.
ii. The cases which have no legal impediment after
verification, shall be cleared by the concerned Respondent
and the salary benefits to which the Petitioners are
entitled to, in the light of the one step pay-scale made
available to the employees working in the Tribal and
PESA areas, shall be paid to them along with arrears as
-7-
wp1348.26.odt
well as their current salary, within a period of 30 days,
thereafter.
iii. After scrutiny, if the Petitioners, on the basis of
their record, are found to be ineligible, the concerned
Respondent, would issue notice to the Petitioners, so as to
enable them to appear before the said authority and
address it.
iv. After such hearing, which shall be completed within
120 days, the concerned Respondent shall pass an
appropriate order and grant benefits of one-step pay-scale
to those candidates, who are found to be eligible.
v. The Petitioners, who may suffer an adverse order
after the above stated exercise is completed, shall be at
liberty to avail of a statutory remedy, as is permissible in
law and in the light of the Government Resolution dated
29.02.2024 issued by the General Administration
Department and/or any other relevant Government
Resolution.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI )
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
Checking your session…