Disposed

Lailabi Raosaheb Nadaf v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Bombay HC19 Nov 2024WP/4834/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Batch of writ petitions by retired BEST Undertaking employees seeking unpaid retiral dues. The Court continued earlier interim orders directing payment of retiral dues and directed a second installment of 35% of the outstanding amount to be disbursed by 28 February 2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to BEST to pay second installment of 35% of remaining retiral dues by 28 February 2025; matter listed 24 January 2025; State affidavit-in-reply due 10 January 2025.

Lailabi Raosaheb Nadaf vs Municipal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2-wp-913-2024.odt

¶2

NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Digitally signed byNIKITA KAILASDARADEDate: 2024.12.1017:55:14 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.913 OF 2024

¶5

Ajay Vasantrao Naik ….Petitioner Vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra ….Respondent

¶7

WITH

¶8

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.30691 OF 2024

¶9

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.913 OF 2024

¶11

Ajay Vasantrao Naik …Applicant Vs.

¶12

State of Maharashtra ….Respondent

¶13

WITH

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.1743 OF 2024

¶15

Shirish Govind Ketkar ….Petitioner Vs.

¶16

State of Maharashtra ….Respondents

¶17

WITH

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO.2443 OF 2024

¶19

Sunil Gangaram Jadhav ….Petitioner Vs.

¶20

State of Maharashtra ….Respondents

¶21

WITH

¶22

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.64 OF 2024

¶23

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO.1364 OF 2021

1 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

Mangesh Krishna Pednekar ….Petitioner Vs. Anil Diggikar ….Respondents WITH

¶29

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.15029 OF 2024

¶30

Ravindranath Keshav Magar ….Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra ….Respondents WITH

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO.1183 OF 2023

¶32

Mohd. Yusuf Umer Shaikh ….Petitioner Vs.

¶33

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO.1182 OF 2023

¶35

Murtaza Yahya Shethwala ….Petitioner Vs.

¶36

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO.1343 OF 2023

¶38

Pradeep Prabhakar Kulkarni ….Petitioner Vs.

¶39

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶40

WRIT PETITION NO.3523 OF 2022

¶41

Chitra Narayanan ….Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶42

Nikita 2 of 19

¶43

2-wp-913-2024.odt

¶44

WRIT PETITION NO.3536 OF 2022

¶45

Ramesh Appu Prabhu ….Petitioner

¶46

Vs.

¶47

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶48

WRIT PETITION NO.1032 OF 2023

¶49

Shashikant Dhonduram Shirke ….Petitioner

¶50

Vs.

¶51

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶52

WRIT PETITION NO.1034 OF 2023

¶53

Savita Chandrakant Kini ….Petitioner

¶54

Vs.

¶55

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶56

WRIT PETITION NO.1041 OF 2023

¶57

Rajendra Babu Kanade ….Petitioner

¶58

Vs.

¶59

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶60

WRIT PETITION NO.1057 OF 2023

¶61

Ravindra Baburao Avhad ….Petitioner

¶62

Vs.

¶63

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶64

WRIT PETITION NO.917 OF 2023

3 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

Vasudevan Madhavan Nair ….Petitioner Vs.

¶69

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶70

WRIT PETITION NO.870 OF 2023

¶71

Ramakant Dnyandeo Mane ….Petitioner Vs.

¶72

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶73

WRIT PETITION NO.1012 OF 2023

¶74

Shivaji Pandurang Karande ….Petitioner Vs.

¶75

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶76

WRIT PETITION NO.970 OF 2023

¶77

Ashok Jagannathrao Jawker ….Petitioner Vs.

¶78

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶79

WRIT PETITION NO.4834 OF 2024

¶80

Lailabi Raosaheb Nadaf ….Petitioner Vs.

¶81

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶82

WRIT PETITION NO.1053 OF 2023

¶83

Ganpat Bhaurao Khavare ….Petitioner Vs.

¶84

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

4 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

WRIT PETITION NO.1165 OF 2023

¶89

Ankush Shivram Dalvi ….Petitioner Vs.

¶90

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶91

WRIT PETITION NO.3644 OF 2022

¶92

Vijay Sakharam Kadam ….Petitioner Vs.

¶93

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶94

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.47 OF 2024

¶95

¶96

WRIT PETITION NO.1364 OF 2021

¶97

Dilip Sahebrao Yevale ….Petitioner Vs.

¶98

Vijay Singhal General Manager, Brihanmumbai Electric Supply

¶99

and Transport Undertaking of MCGM ….Respondents

¶100

WITH

¶101

WRIT PETITION NO.1052 OF 2023

¶102

Sunil Ramchandra Deshpande ….Petitioner Vs.

¶103

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶104

WRIT PETITION NO.1170 OF 2023

¶105

Samir Suryakant Gharat ….Petitioner

5 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

Vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶111

WRIT PETITION NO.1137 OF 2023

¶112

Ajay Ramakant Sinkar ….Petitioner

¶113

Vs.

¶114

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶115

WRIT PETITION NO.1212 OF 2023

¶116

Sanjay Shankar Sakhalkar ….Petitioner Vs.

¶117

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶118

WRIT PETITION NO.1018 OF 2023

¶119

Anil Tryambak Patil ….Petitioner

¶120

Vs.

¶121

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶122

WRIT PETITION NO.647 OF 2023

¶123

Suchita Umesh Malap ….Petitioner

¶124

Vs.

¶125

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶126

WRIT PETITION NO.1033 OF 2023

¶127

Kamalakar Mahadeo Kadam ….Petitioner Vs.

¶128

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

6 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

WRIT PETITION NO.881 OF 2023

¶133

Pamela Caroline Albert D’souza ….Petitioner

¶134

Vs.

¶135

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶136

WRIT PETITION NO.650 OF 2023

¶137

Gurudas Pandurang Pawar ….Petitioner

¶138

Vs.

¶139

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶140

WRIT PETITION NO.1024 OF 2023

¶141

Dilip Genu Kasle ….Petitioner Vs.

¶142

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶143

WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2023

¶144

Shrikant Gopalrao Dhisle ….Petitioner

¶145

Vs.

¶146

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶147

WRIT PETITION NO.932 OF 2023

¶148

Sushama Ajay Rege ….Petitioner

¶149

Vs.

¶150

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶151

WRIT PETITION NO.1127 OF 2023

7 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

Vasant Bhaskar Zambare ….Petitioner Vs.

¶156

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶157

WRIT PETITION NO.1173 OF 2023

¶158

Deepak Kanhaiyalal Shimpi ….Petitioner Vs.

¶159

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶160

WRIT PETITION NO.957 OF 2023

¶161

Dinkar Damodar Waghulde ….Petitioner Vs.

¶162

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶163

WRIT PETITION NO.1114 OF 2023

¶164

Praad Kedarnath Dharankar ….Petitioner Vs.

¶165

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶166

WRIT PETITION NO.871 OF 2023

¶167

Premchandra Yadav Bhirud ….Petitioner Vs.

¶168

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

¶169

WRIT PETITION NO.1164 OF 2023

¶170

Devidas Rajaram Pawar ….Petitioner Vs.

¶171

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents WITH

8 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

WRIT PETITION NO.1036 OF 2023

¶176

Vilasrao Bapurao Metkari ….Petitioner Vs.

¶177

Municipal Corporation of Greater

¶178

Mumbai and Anr. ….Respondents

¶179

Adv. Pranshul Dube i/b Vidvat Associates for the Petitioner in WP/4834/2024.

¶180

Adv. R. D. Bhat for the Petitioner in WP/913/2024.

¶181

Adv. Sapna Rachure for the Petitioner in WP/1183/2023, 1182/2023, 1143/2023, 3523/2022, 3536/2022, 1032/2023, 1034/2023, 1041/2023, 1057/2023, 917/2023, 870/2023, 1012/2023, 970/2023, 1053/2023, 1165/2023, 3644/2022, 1052/2023, 1070/2023, 137/2023, 1212/2023, 1018/2023, 647/2023, 1033/2023 881/2023, 650/2023, 1024/2023, 1016/2023, 932/2023, 1127/2023, 1173/2023, 957/2023, 1114/2023, 871/2023, 1164/2023, 1136/2023.

¶182

Adv. Gayatri Nayak a/w Adv. Raj Gupta, a/w Adv. Lubdha Bhoir, a/w Adv. Akash Tayade i/b R.P. Khobragade for the Petitioner in WP/1743/2024, WP/2443/2024, and WPL/15029/2024.

¶183

Senior Counsel Dr. Milind Sathe, a/w Ms. Shilpa Redkar for the Respondent No.2 (BMC).

¶184

Senior Counsel Mr. Girish Godbole a/w Av. Vishal Talsania, Adv. Radha, a/w Adv. H. Bhandari a/w Adv. Sumeet Palsuledesai i/b M. V. Kini & Co. for the Respondent BEST in all matters except WP/913/2024, CP/47/2024, CP/64/2024, WP/2443/2024, WPL/15029/2024.

¶185

Senior Counsel Mr. Girish Godbole a/w Mr. Vishal Talsania a/w Shraddha Nagaonkar, a/w Adv. Sagar Shetty a/w Adv. Krushika Udeshi i/b Mr. Sagar Shetty for Respondent No. 3- BEST Undertaking in WP/913/2024, WP/2443/2024, and WPL/15029/2024, CP/47/2024, CP/64/2024.

¶186

Ms. Vaishali Choudhari, Addl. G. P. a/w Ms. Rita Joshi AGP for the State in WP/913/2024 and WP/1743/2024.

9 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

Ms. Vrushali Kobre AGP for the State in WP/2443/2024.

¶191

Ms. Uma PalsuleDesai, AGP for the State in WP-1364/2021, CP/64/2024.

¶192

Ms. Jaymala Ostwal, Add, GP for the State in WPL/15029/2024. Mr. Kaustubh Gidh, for the Petitioners in CP/47/2024 and CP/64/2024.

¶193

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE& ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶194

DATE : 4^th DECEMBER, 2024

¶195

P.C. :-

¶196

In all these matters, this Court [Coram: Nitin Jamdar (as His Lordship then was) and M. M. Sathaye, JJ.] has extensively heard the learned Senior Advocates and the Advocates appearing on behalf of the litigating parties. An extensive order, considering their submissions, has been passed on 10^th May, 2024. Thereafter, in the next hearing on 9^th August, 2024, again an extensive order has been passed.

¶197

We do not wish to enlarge the size of this order by reproducing both the orders. Suffice it to say, that the order that is being passed by us today, is only in continuation with the earlier orders dated 10^th May, 2024 and 9^th August, 2024.

¶198

The undisputed fact is that all the Petitioner employees who have retired, some of whom are before us and some have not

10 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

been able to approach the Court, are waiting for their retiral dues/pensionary dues. As long as they were in service, they were drawing their regular salaries. Having superannuated, they are passing through such a phase in life, that they can survive only on the retiral benefits and spend for medication through such dues.

¶203

On 10^th May, 2024 , this Court has recorded in paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 as under:

¶204

“ 12. Both the authorities in question are statutory bodies and should act as model employers. It is unacceptable that the majority of retired employees of this Undertaking are still waiting for their arrears of retiral dues without any commitment from the authorities. We had given sufficient time to the BEST Undertaking to provide a reasonable commitment, but the commitment presented is inadequate. Therefore, we have no option but to issue a direction to the Respondent – BEST Undertaking and bind them to a time limit. While we could have directed the entire amount to be paid in a single installment, we intend to give the BEST Undertaking time to pay at least part of the retiral dues. Based on their conduct, we will consider extending further time or issuing a one-time direction.

¶205

Accordingly, we direct that the RespondentBEST Undertaking will work out the retiral / terminal dues of each of its retired employees whose dues are unpaid, as

11 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

per the applicable law. After calculating the amount, the Respondent – BEST Undertaking will pay 30% of the retiral dues of each o the retired employees within three months from today. This order will apply to the Petitioners before us and to all the eligible retired employees of the BEST Undertaking since Writ Petition No.913 of 2024 is in a representative capacity. We place the responsibility of complying with this order on the General Manager of the BEST Undertaking.”

¶210

It is, thus, obvious that this Court has considered the financial difficulties faced by BEST and that BEST was praying for financial assistance from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. To summarize the contentions of the BEST, it said to be running into losses and is surviving on subsidies by the Corporation. It does not have the money to clear all the legal dues of those employees who have retired from service since 2016 onwards.

¶211

The problems seem to be many, but the problems faced by the retired employees are of such magnitude, that it has become difficult for them to keep their mind, body and soul together without retiral benefits. At an age when medical assistance and proper nourishment would be the key to a long retired life, these people are not only unable to keep themselves well nourished, but they do not

12 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

have resources even to spend on medication. They are in such a phase in life, when an aging human body needs medical assistance and treatment, more frequently than when the same bodies were young and energetic and had toiled in service of the BEST. We find it unconscionable to expect them to wait for longer periods, some of whom have already been waiting since 2016.

¶216

It is due to the orders of this Court dated 10^th May, 2024 and the order dated 9^th August, 2024, by which 30% of the retiral dues, as the first installment, were directed to be paid. We are informed by the learned Senior Counsel representing the BEST that most of the retired employees have been paid from this first installment, save and except those who have passed away and their legal heirs have not responded to the information which was uploaded on the website of BEST as per the orders of this Court.

¶217

The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Godbole, representing the BEST has drawn our attention to an earlier affidavit dated 14^th November 2024 wherein a host of difficulties have been voiced. It is also tried to be canvased that though the employer-employee relationship between the Petitioners and the BEST cannot be disputed and the relationship is not interjected by any entity, the BEST has always been approaching the Corporation for funding

13 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

them. As like any other local transport service in any district in the State of Maharashtra, BEST is suffering losses and can never be a profitable establishment, considering that the transportation activity has to be subsidized in order to ensure that the end users are able to use the transport services at lowest cost.

¶222

Mr. Godbole has then relied upon one additional affidavit dated 29^th November, 2024, wherein it is canvased as under:

¶223

A) BEST is continuously requesting the Corporation for financial assistance.

¶224

B) BEST would require Rs.1,031 crores for clearing the remaining 70% of the retiral dues, over and above, the budget of Rs.800 Crores. The BEST is in a precarious financial condition.

¶225

C) Under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act), whenever there is a deficit with the BEST to meet the obligations towards its employees, it has approached the Corporation which has obliged by funding such deficit amount from the municipal funds.

14 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

10. The following chart is tendered for ready reference,

¶230

below paragraph No.8 of the said affidavit:

¶231

Year	Amount Requested by 3^rdRespondent (Rs. in crores)	Provisions made by the 2^nd Respondent in Budget (Rs.in Crores)	Amount received by 2^nd Respondent (Rs.in Crores)	Deficit against amount requested by 3^rdRespondent (Rs.in Crores)
2020-21	1629.29	1000.00	1104.33	524.96
2021-22	6650.31	750.00	1217.29	5433.02
2022-23	2528.59	800.00	2627.12	-
2023-24	2774.37	800.00	1300.03	1474.34
2024-25	2922.90	800.00	737.21	2185.69
Total	16505.46	4150.00	6985.98	9618.01

¶232

In order to mitigate establishment costs, there are directives issued for prohibiting new recruitment and promotions. Vehicles have been acquired on lease basis. The provisions of the MMC Act 1888, would indicate that the Corporation has to provide financial assistance and aid to the BEST. The Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sathe, points out from the affidavit filed by the Corporation dated 22^nd November, 2024 that the Corporation is not legally obliged to keep funding the BEST and there cannot be a mandate that the Corporation should fund the BEST.

¶233

As recorded in the opening paragraph of this order, we have perused the earlier orders of this Court and we are taking things forward in view of the reasons assigned in the said orders.

¶234

Nikita 15 of 19

¶235

2-wp-913-2024.odt

¶236

The issue as to whether BEST should be funded or financially supported by the Corporation, is an issue between the two parties, which has been considered at a prima facie stage by this Court in paragraph No.9 onwards of the order dated 10^th May, 2024. In paragraph No.12 of the order, this Court has expressed a view that these Authorities are statutory bodies and should act as model employee. They ought to take appropriate steps to ensure that the retiral dues are paid within a reasonable time. In the light of such conclusions, rather than directing to make the entire payment of retiral dues, this Court directed that one installment of 30% would be paid within three months and the said order would apply to not only the Petitioners before the Court, but also to all the eligible retired employees of the BEST undertaking. It was observed in paragraph No.15 of the said order that further directions for making the payment of the remaining 70% of the dues would be issued subsequently depending upon the conduct of the BEST undertaking.

¶237

Retiral benefits is not a bounty. In fact, components of the retiral dues like the provident fund accumulations and the gratuity amount are treated to be properties of the employees. It is for the BEST to generate the funds and ensure that the retiral dues are paid to these persons. The learned Advocates representing the

16 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

Petitioners submit that, in not less than two Lok Adalat, the BEST agreed to make the payment of the retiral dues and according to the learned Advocates, such dues have been paid within 45 days. In the Lok Adalat the agreement was for making entire payment of the legal dues.

¶242

Mr. Godbole contradicts the said statement on instructions, that the BEST was not able to keep its word as per the Lok Adalat settlements due to paucity of funds and some payments are yet to be made. He submits that today, the loan with the BEST as on 31^st August, 2024 is Rs.2216.88 Crores and the deficit is Rs.9531 Crores. The family pension is being paid in terms of the provisions of The Employees’ Provident Funds and [Miscellaneous Provisions] Act, 1952.

¶243

In the order dated 9^th August, 2024 the statement of BEST that it has received an amount of Rs.332.24 Crores from the Corporation, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10^th May, 2024, was recorded. The said statement was confirmed by the learned counsel for the Corporation. The order to pay 30% of the dues was passed on 2^nd May 2024 and the amounts had to be paid within three months. Ideally, the further order directing the second installment to be paid, should have come in the month of October.

17 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

Today, we have to consider the aspect of the payment of 70% of the amount which is due and payable. Gratuity calculated as per the old scale of wages has been paid to the retired employees, until 2022. Thereafter, in view of revised pay scale, gratuity amounts have not been paid.

¶248

In these circumstances, we are inclined to quantify the second installment at 35% of the remaining amount (70%), meaning half of the remainder amount. In tune with the orders passed earlier, the said amount of 35% would be distributed proportionately, depending on the arrears to be paid to the retired employees, by transferring the said amount via electronic mode and the data base available with the BEST Undertaking, so as to complete the procedure for disbursement. Around three months time was granted to the BEST to make the payment of the first installment.

¶249

We, therefore, direct the BEST to follow the same procedure and mode of making the payment and such disbursement of the second installment of the 35%, would be achieved until 28^th February, 2025. This should not be construed to mean that the entire payment is to be made in the last week of February 2025. We would appreciate, if the BEST commences the payment in a staggered manner and complies with our direction, latest by 28^th February,

18 of 19

Nikita

2-wp-913-2024.odt

Needless to state, if the BEST approaches the Municipal Corporation, taking into view the earlier arrangement between the two when the corporation funded the BEST for making the payment towards the 30% of the amounts, it would be appreciable if the Municipal Corporation rises to the occasion with a humane heart and helps the BEST to disburse such amount. This should not be construed to mean that the BEST would sit tight without initiating any steps and only wait for the amount to be received from the Corporation or make it an excuse for nonpayment. As recorded in the earlier orders, we would place the responsibility of complying with this order on the General Manager of the BEST.

¶255

List these Writ Petitions on 24^th January 2025 at 2.30 pm.

¶256

Considering prayer clause D (a and b), the State Government shall file its affidavit-in-reply on or before 10^th January, 2025 failing which, costs would be imposed on the State.

¶257

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶258

19 of 19

¶259

Nikita

Lailabi Raosaheb Nadaf v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lailabi Raosaheb Nadaf v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arvind Kamalakant Pingle vs Iqbal Chahal, IAS

Reshu Singh vs Union of India

Umesh Ravsaheb Lakhagoudar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education and Sports and Ors.

Ramesh Shankar Koli and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tushar Vasantrao Patil vs the State of Maha. Thr. Prin. Sec. Dept. of School Education and Ors.

Rajaram Tukaram Padekar vs State of Maharashtra