Bombay High Court
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AAREY MILK COLONYversusSANGEETA BHIMNATH SURVE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order granting interim pension is set aside as the respondent's regularisation status remains unsettled, and the matter must be decided on its merits by the Industrial Court.
Summary
The petitioners challenged an order of the Industrial Court dated 31 October 2025 that granted the respondent interim pension pending a complaint. The core dispute was whether the respondent, a 73‑year‑old employee, had ever been regularised for purposes of pension entitlement. The High Court noted that the earlier judgment awarding a lump‑sum compensation did not resolve the regularisation issue. Consequently, the Court set aside the interim pension order and directed the Industrial Court to expedite a final hearing of the underlying complaint, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations. All substantive contentions were left open for determination, and the writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent was regularised in service for the purpose of drawing pension and pensionary benefits
- Whether the Industrial Court’s interim order granting provisional pension should stand pending final determination of the complaint
Subjects
- pension
- regularisation
- industrial court
- interim relief
- writ petition
- employment law
- senior citizen
- compensation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:34666
Megha 48_wp_7907_2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7907 OF 2026
The Chief Executive Officer, Aarey Milk
Colony, Goregaon (East) and Anr. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Sangeeta Bhimnath Surve ...Respondent
________________
Ms. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Petitioners.
Mr. Shailesh K. More for the Respondent.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 20 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1) Challenge in the Petition is to the order dated 31 October 2025
passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, on Application at Exhibit U-2
granting interim relief in favour of the Respondent by directing the
Petitioner to pay to the Respondent provisional pension during
pendency of the Complaint.
2) I have heard Ms. Nimbalkar, the learned AGP appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. More, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent and have considered the submissions canvassed by them.
Page No.1 of 2
20 August 2026
Megha 48_wp_7907_2026
3) As of now, there appears to be serious dispute as to whether the
Respondent is regularised in service or not. Ms. Nimbalkar, the learned
AGP appearing for the Petitioners-State relies on order passed by this
Court in The Chief Executive Officer and Another V/s. Smt. Sangeeta
Surve 1, by which only lumpsum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- is
awarded in favour of the Respondent.
4) In my view, a deeper scrutiny would be required into the aspect as
to whether the Respondent ever became regular employee for the
purpose of drawal of pension and pensionary benefits. For that purpose,
the Complaint needs to be taken up for final hearing.
5) In view of the above discussion, order dated 31 October 2025 is
set aside. Instead, the Industrial Court is requested to expedite the
decision on Complaint (ULP) No.109 of 2025. Considering the fact that
the Respondent is at an advanced age of 73 years, the Industrial Court
shall decide the Complaint expeditiously, preferably within a period of
one year. The Complaint shall be decided uninfluenced by the
observations made by this Court in the order.
6) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open.
7) Writ Petition is allowed in above terms.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
1 Writ Petition No.9257 of 2004 decided on 28 September 2017.
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 20 August 2026
Date: 21/08/2026 20:30:36
Checking your session…