Disposed¶23

Shri. Prasad Balkrishna Gawade v. the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Rural Development and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Aug 2025PIL/81/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, PIL No. 81 of 2025, Prasad Balkrishna Gawade v. State of Maharashtra (Department of Rural Development) — challenge to Minister, Rural Development's stay of termination of compassionate appointees and suspension of appointing Officer; PIL disposed of with direction to hear affected parties and pass speaking order within six weeks; no statute or precedent cited; merits left undecided.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Minister, Rural Development to afford an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, including the Petitioner-complainant, and to conclude the pending proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, by a speaking order. ¶23

Shri. Prasad Balkrishna Gawade vs the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Rural Development and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Minister, Rural Development had authority in law to stay the termination of the compassionate appointees and the suspension of the Officer, while proceedings before him remain pending (as urged by the Petitioner). +1 more

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account the submissions of counsel and the non-joinder of the compassionate appointees and the Officer, the Court directed the Minister of Rural Development to afford an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, including the Petitioner as complainant, and to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, by a speaking order. The Court did not decide the legality of the Minister's stay order.

¶22

Key takeaways

The Public Interest Litigation was disposed of in terms of the above direction.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation challenging the order dated 5 August 2021 of the Minister, Rural Development, whereby the Minister stayed the order dated 27 July 2021 terminating persons appointed on compassionate basis and the order dated 5 July 2021 suspending the Officer who made those appointments. The Petitioner contended that the Minister lacked authority to stay the orders and that the appointees had continued in service for about four years on the strength of the stay. The Court did not adjudicate the legality of the Minister's action. Noting that the Petitioner had not impleaded the appointees or the Officer, the Court directed the Minister to hear all affected parties, including the Petitioner as complainant, and to conclude the pending proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, by a speaking order. The PIL was disposed of accordingly.

¶1

JPP 12. PIL 81.2025.doc

¶2

JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR

¶3

Digitally signed by JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Date: 2025.08.11 15:23:36 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 81 OF 2025

¶6

Prasad Balkrishna Gawade … Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, Department of Rural Development and Ors. … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Yogesh Deshpande with Mr. Abhay Jadhavar and Pranav Rane i/b. Makarand Kale for the Petitioner

¶10

Ms. Neha Bhide, Govt. Pleader with Ms. R.A. Salunkhe, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - State

¶11

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. AND SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶12

DATE : 08 AUGUST 2025

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

In this Petition, the Petitioner has assailed the validity of the

¶15

order dated 5 August 2021 passed by the Minister, Rural Development, who had stayed the order dated 27 July 2021 of termination of the persons who were appointed on compassionate basis as well as order dated 5 July 2021 suspending the Officer who had made such appointments.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the aforesaid

¶17

action was taken on the basis of the complaint submitted by the Petitioner and the Minister, Rural Development has no authority in law to suspend the

¶18

1/2

¶19

JPP 12. PIL 81.2025.doc

¶20

operation of the order dated 5 August 2021. It is further submitted that the proceedings before the Minister, Rural Development is pending and the appointees are continuing in service for past about four years on the basis of an illegal order of stay.

¶21

On the other hand, the learned AGP on instructions submits that in case the proceeding before the Minister, Rural Development is pending, the Petitioner as well as the persons, who may be affected by the order which shall be passed in the proceedings, be heard and an appropriate order shall be passed within a period of six weeks from today.

¶22

In view of submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties as well as taking into account the fact that the Petitioner has not impleaded the persons who have been appointed on compassionate basis as well as the Officer, who had made such appointments, in this PIL, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the Minister of Rural Development to afford an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties including the Petitioner, who is a complainant and to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today by a speaking order.

¶23

Accordingly, the PIL is disposed of.

¶24

2/2

Shri. Prasad Balkrishna Gawade v. the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Rural Development and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Prasad Balkrishna Gawade v. the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Rural Development and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Irshad Zakir Qureshi and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thor. Its Principal Secretary Ministry of Urban Develoment

Lalchand Avachit Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Kalpesh Chandrakant Yadav vs the Union of India Thr. Its Secretary Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Kalpesh Chandrakant Yadav vs the Union of India Thr. Its Secretary Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Tiroda Taluka Sangharsh Samity Tiroda, Thr. Secretary, Sandeep S/O Premlal Patil and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mumbai and Ors.

Indian Orthodontics Society through Its Secretary Dr. Sanjay Labh vs Maharashtra State Dental Council

Sharad Ghodke vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Is Principal Sec. Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Raees Ahmad S/O. Shaikh Noora Vs State of Maha., Thr. Chief Secy., Ministry of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Anil Sakharam Naik vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Lloyds Engineering Works Ltd. vs Transparent Energy Systems Private Ltd. through the Liquidator Vijendra Kumar Jain

Heather Cosmetics Tex Limited vs Kurseong Computer Sales Pvt. Ltd.

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs MD Supreme Transport Co.

Siemens Financial Services Private Limited vs G and L Profile Services Private Limited

Mahendraprasad Kedarnath Dubey vs Lotus Logistics and Developers Pvt. Ltd.