Gulbasha Shahajahan Shaikh and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Office of Governemt Pleader and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gulbasha Shahajahan Shaikh and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Office of Governemt Pleader and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.3 – Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune to decide the proposal dated 18 September 2023 (inclusion of Petitioner No.1 in 'Shalarth - ID Pay System' and grant of 'Shalarth Pay I.D') expeditiously, in any event within eight weeks of communication of the order, on its own merit; liberty to Respondent No.5 and the Intervener to make a representation; all parties to co-operate; no order as to costs; Interim Application [Stamp] No.1978 of 2025 stands disposed of with the petition.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.3 – Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune should be directed to decide the proposal dated 18 September 2023 forwarded by Respondent No.4 for including Petitioner No.1 in the 'Shalarth - ID Pay System' and granting Petitioner No.1 a 'Shalarth Pay I.D', and within what time.

Court's answer

On prayer clause (c), the Court found that a proposal dated 18 September 2023 had been forwarded by Respondent No.4 – Education Officer (Secondary), Pune Zilla Parishad, Pune for including Petitioner No.1 in the 'Shalarth – ID Pay System' and granting a 'Shalarth Pay I.D'; Respondent No.3 – Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune was directed to decide that proposal expeditiously and, in any event, within eight weeks from communication of the order, on its own merit.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.5 and the Intervener were granted liberty to make a proper representation to Respondent No.3 – Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune explaining their position regarding the said proposal.

Key takeaways

All parties were directed to co-operate with Respondent No.3 in deciding the proposal forwarded by Respondent No.4 – Education Officer (Secondary), Pune Zilla Parishad, Pune.ratio¶6
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, did not press prayer clause (b); all contentions of the parties in that regard were kept open.ratio¶2

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Circuit Bench), Coram M.S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ (8 September 2025), disposed of Writ Petition No.11477 of 2024 (Gulbasha Shahajahan Shaikh and others v. State of Maharashtra and others). Prayer clause (b) was not pressed on instructions and all contentions thereon were kept open. On prayer clause (c), the Court recorded that a proposal dated 18 September 2023 had been forwarded by Respondent No.4 – Education Officer (Secondary), Pune Zilla Parishad, Pune for including Petitioner No.1 in the 'Shalarth – ID Pay System' and consequently granting a 'Shalarth Pay I.D'. Respondent No.3 – Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune was directed to decide the proposal expeditiously and, in any event, within eight weeks from communication of the order, on its own merit. Respondent No.5 and the Intervener (Anjuman E. Targeebe Taleem, Akkalkot Trust, applicant in Interim Application [Stamp] No.1978 of 2025) were permitted to make a proper representation to Respondent No.3 explaining their position, and all parties were directed to co-operate. No order as to costs; the Interim Application stood disposed of with the petition.

36-WP-11477-2024.doc

Shailaja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.11477 OF 2024

Gulbasha Shahajahan Shaikh and others ] Petitioners versus

State of Maharashtra and others ] Respondents

a/w

INTERIM APPLICATION [STAMP] NO.1978 OF 2025 IN

WRIT PETITION NO.11477 OF 2024

Anjuman E. Targeebe Taleem, Akkalkot Trust ] Through Its President ] Applicant

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

Gulbasha Shahajahan Shaikh and others ] Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra and others ] Respondents

Mr. Akil Kupade, for Petitioner.

Mr. S.B. Kalel, A.G.P, for Respondent – State.

Mr. Padmanabh D. Pise a/w Sejal A. Hariyan i/b P. Padmanabh & Associates, for Respondent No.5.

Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar, for Applicant in Interim Application [Stamp] No.1978 of 2025.

CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ

DATE : 8^th SEPTEMBER, 2025.

1 of 3

SHAILAJA Digitally signed bySHAILAJA SHRIKANT SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2025.09.09 HALKUDE 10:31:50 +0530

36-WP-11477-2024.doc

P.C:

Heard Mr. Kupade, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Kalel, learned A.G.P, for Respondent – State and Mr. Pise, learned Counsel for Respondent No.5 and Mr. Vadgaonkar, learned Counsel for Applicant in Interim Application [Stamp] No.1978 of 2025.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, does not press prayer clause (b). All contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open.

So far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, we find that proposal dated 18^th September, 2023 was forwarded by Respondent No.4 – Education Officer (Secondary) Pune Zilla Parishad, Pune for including the name of the Petitioner in “Shalarth – ID Pay System” and consequently grant the Petitioner No.1 “Shalarth Pay I.D”.

Respondent No.3 – Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune is directed to decide the proposal dated 18^th September, 2023 forwarded by Respondent No.4 to include the name of the Petitioner in “Shalarth - ID Pay System” and consequently grant the Petitioner No.1 “Shalarth Pay I.D” expeditiously and, in any event, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order on it’s own merit.

2 of 3

36-WP-11477-2024.doc

It is open for Respondent No.5 and the Intervener to make a proper representation to Respondent No.3 – Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune explaining their position so far as the said proposal is concerned.

All parties to co-operate with Respondent No.3 to decide the proposal forwarded by Respondent No.4 – Education Officer (Secondary), Pune Zilla Parishad, Pune.

The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, Interim Application stands disposed of.

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH. J.] [M.S. KARNIK, J.]

3 of 3