Bombay High Court

BALAJI DHONDIBA JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court ordered Respondent No. 3 to decide the petitioner’s proposal per Rule 41 and 41A of the MEPS Rules within four weeks and to pay the petitioner his regular salary.

Summary

Balaji Dhondiba Jadhav filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking consideration of his proposal under Rule 41 and 41A of the MEPS Rules and the payment of his regular salary. The Court observed that the petition is squarely covered by its earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 1021 of 2025. Accordingly, the Court directed Respondent No. 3 to decide the petitioner’s proposal in accordance with the specified rules, without referring to the Government Resolutions dated 29 April 2004 and 3 October 2024, nor the notification dated 13 November 2025. The Court further ordered that, since the petitioner’s approval remains intact, his regular salary should be paid. The petition was disposed of with these specific directions.

Issues considered

Whether Respondent No. 3 must consider the petitioner’s proposal under Rule 41 and 41A of the MEPS Rules notwithstanding certain government resolutions and a notification.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular salary pending the decision on his proposal.

Legislation cited

MEPS Rules — s. 41, 41A

Subjects

MEPS Rules
salary entitlement
government resolutions
writ petition
administrative law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37806-DB


                                                  {1}                    wp9551-26.doc
                 drp
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO.9551 OF 2026

                 Balaji Dhondiba Jadhav                                 PETITIONER

                        VERSUS

                 The State of Maharashtra and Others                  RESPONDENTS

                                                .......
                 Mr. V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Petitioner
                 Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP for Respondent - State
                                                .......

                              [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
                                       ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.]

                                      DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026

                 ORDER :

                 1.     Indisputably, the Petitioner’s case is squarely covered by

                 the decision of this Court in Writ Petition no. 1021 of 2025.


                 2.     For the reasons stated in the said order, the Writ Petition is

                 disposed of by directing Respondent No.3 to consider and decide

                 Petitioner’s proposal in accordance with Rule 41 and 41A of the

                 MEPS Rules, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within

                 a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

                 order, without referring to Government Resolutions dated 29 th

                 April, 2004 and 3rd October, 2024 so also notification dated 13 th

                 November, 2025.
                               {2}                   wp9551-26.doc


3.    Since the Petitioner’s approval is intact, regular salary be

paid to him.



[ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ]                 [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
         JUDGE                                    JUDGE

drp/wp9551-26.doc

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…