Bombay High Court
PRAMOD VITTHAL KAMBLE AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY URBAN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court directed the concerned Zilla Parishad and Education Officer to decide the petitioners' representation on gratuity enhancement by 31 July 2026, without adjudicating the substantive merits.
Summary
The petitioners, Pramod Vitthal Kamble and others, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking direction to the State of Maharashtra and related authorities to act on a representation dated 8 October 2025 concerning an increase in gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioners clarified that they were not pressing any specific prayer clause but wanted the pending representation before Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur and the Education Officer (Primary) to be considered. The Court examined the procedural aspect and, without delving into the substantive merits of the gratuity claim, ordered the respondents (Nos. 4 and 5) to decide the representation expeditiously, preferably by 31 July 2026. It was expressly noted that the merits of the gratuity enhancement claim remain open for future consideration. The writ petition was consequently disposed of without any order as to costs. The judgment thus serves as a procedural mandamus directing administrative action rather than adjudicating the substantive right to enhanced gratuity.
Issues considered
- What procedural direction, if any, should the Court issue to compel administrative authorities to decide a pending representation concerning gratuity enhancement under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Gratuity
- Payment of Gratuity Act
- Writ Petition
- Mandamus
- Administrative Delay
- Bombay High Court
- Procedural Direction
Judgment
28-WP-901-2026 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 901 OF 2026
Pramod Vitthal Kamble And Ors. ...Petitioners
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr.
Secretary Urban And Rural
Development Dept. And Ors. ...Respondents
——————
Mr. Datta Pawar a/w. Eshan Nayak, Shakshi Jankar, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr. R. P. Kadam, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for respondents-State.
Ms. Poonam Dhotre a/w. Adv. Indrayani Patil, Advocate for respondent
nos. 4 & 5.
——————
Coram : Madhav J. Jamdar &
Pravin S. Patil, JJ.
Date : March 4, 2026.
ORDER (PER MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) :
1. Heard Mr.Pawar, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr.
Kadam, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.Lad, learned
Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
2. At the outset, learned Advocate for the petitioners, on
instructions, states that the petitioners are not pressing prayer clause
adn 1 of 2
28-WP-901-2026 (C).doc
(a). He, however, submits that the representation dated 8 th October
2025 of the petitioners is pending with respondent Nos.4 and 5,
namely Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur and the Education Oicer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur for last about ive months. The said
representation pertains to enhancement of the gratuity amount in
accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
3. In view of the above, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed to
consider and decide the representation dated 8 th October 2025 iled by
the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before
31st July 2026.
4. It is clariied that this Court has not examined the merits of the
matter and all contentions on merits are expressly kept open.
5. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms,
however, with no order as to costs.
[Pravin S. Patil, J.] [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]
adn 2 of 2
Checking your session…