The petitioner challenged the implementation of the VII Pay Commission, arguing it would deplete funds for welfare schemes and infrastructure. The Court held that revenue allocation is a policy decision beyond judicial management and dismissed the PIL.
Petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 12 PIL 80-19.doc
Sequeira
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 80 OF 2019
Mr.Pushkaraj Shekhar Indurkar .. Petitioner Vs Union of India and others .. Respondents
Mr.Uday P.Warunjikar i/b Nikhilesh Pote, for the Petitioner.
Mr.M.M.Pabale – Addl. Govt. Pleader, for Respondent-State.
CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & NITIN JAMDAR, J. Date : 8 August, 2019.
P.C. :
2 12 PIL 80-19.doc
NITIN JAMDAR, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the State High Court can direct the Government on how to allocate revenue generated from salary and pension payments.
Whether the implementation of the VII Pay Commission recommendations defeats other welfare schemes and infrastructure.
Whether the financial impact on welfare schemes falls within judicially manageable standards.
Mr.Pushkaraj Shekhar Indurkar
Union of India
others
Pradeep Nandrajog
Nitin Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
