Disposed¶38

Poonam Narayan More v. State of Maharashtra Tribal Development Department

Bombay HC28 Apr 2025WP/3709/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Service protection conditional on completion of ten years of employment; equal pay/wages claim referred to Sandip Ganpat Hadbal (W.P. No. 13177 of 2023 with I.A. No. 1418 of 2024, decided 29-11-2024); Madhukar s/o. Bhavanrao Sadgir, 2019 (2) Mh.L.J. 119, applied; writ petitions disposed off/rejected for Petitioners with less than ten years' service; State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court, 29 April 2025.

What did the court decide?

None granted. With the above directions, both Writ Petitions are disposed off: they are not entertained and stand rejected for Petitioners who have not completed ten years of service; for those who have completed ten years, the Madhukar prescription applies; equal pay/wages claims are to be governed by the law laid down in Sandip Ganpat Hadbal (supra). ¶38

Poonam Narayan More vs State of Maharashtra Tribal Development Department — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the services of the Petitioners, most of whom have not completed ten years of employment, are entitled to protection in the light of the judgment in Madhukar s/o. Bhavanrao Sadgir and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra). +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

As made clear in several orders passed on the basis of Madhukar s/o. Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra), unless such Petitioners complete 10 years in employment, their services will not be protected.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

These Writ Petitions are not entertained and stand rejected to the extent of the Petitioners who have not completed ten years of service.

¶36

Key takeaways

For Petitioners who have completed ten years, the prescription laid down in Madhukar s/o. Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra) would be applicable.ratio¶36
Insofar as equal pay/wages are concerned, the law laid down in Sandip Ganpat Hadbal & Ors. (supra) would be applicable to the case of these Petitioners.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge & Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ.), common order dated 29 April 2025 disposing Writ Petition No. 12087 of 2023 (Prashant Salkar & Ors.) and Writ Petition No. 3709 of 2024 (Poonam Narayan More & Ors.) against the State of Maharashtra & Ors. The identically placed Petitioners sought protection of services and equal pay/wages, invoking Madhukar s/o. Bhavanrao Sadgir and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2019 (2) Mh.L.J. 119, and the judgment dated 29 November 2024 in Writ Petition No. 13177 of 2023 with Interim Application No.1418 of 2024 (Sandip Ganpat Hadbal & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.). Held: the Writ Petitions are not entertained and stand rejected to the extent of Petitioners who have not completed ten years of service; where ten years stand completed, the prescription in Madhukar (supra) applies; and on equal pay/wages, the law laid down in Sandip Ganpat Hadbal (supra) governs. Both Writ Petitions disposed off accordingly.

¶1

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2025.05.02 19:21:49 +0530

¶2

910-wp-12087 & 3709 common order.odt

¶3

Trupti

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 12087 OF 2023

¶6

Prashant Salkar & Ors. … Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.3709 OF 2024

¶11

Poonam Narayan More & Ors. … Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶12

Ms.Madhavi Ayyappan with Mr.Parth Rajput i/b. Talekar & Associates for the Petitioners in both the Petitions.

¶13

Mr.S.B.Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP No. 12087 of 2023.

¶14

Mr.V.M.Mali, AGP for the Respondent -State in WP No. 3709 of 2024.

¶15

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶16

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶17

DATE : 29^th APRIL, 2025

¶18

P.C. :-

¶19

We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners

¶20

and the learned AGPs.

¶21

There is no dispute that all these Petitioners are

¶22

identically placed. However, the grievance of the learned AGPs is

¶23

1 of 3

¶24

910-wp-12087 & 3709 common order.odt

¶25

Trupti

¶26

that most of these Petitioners have not even completed ten years when they seek protection in the light of the judgment delivered by this Court in Madhukar s/o. Bhavanrao Sadgir and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others¹ .

¶27

We have made it clear in several orders passed on the basis of Madhukar s/o. Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra), that unless such Petitioners complete 10 years in employment, their services will not be protected.

¶28

The learned AGPs inform us that one of the Petitioners has put in only two and a half years of service. We have no reason to express any impression on this aspect since we are not protecting such Petitioners considering the law laid down in Madhukar s/o. Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra). These Petitions, therefore, would not be entertained to the extent of those who have not completed ten years.

¶29

The prayer of equal pay/wages is made by the Petitioners in the light of the judgment delivered by this Court on 29^th November, 2024 in Writ Petition No. 13177 of 2023 with

¶30

1 2019 (2) Mh.L.J. 119

¶31

2 of 3

¶32

910-wp-12087 & 3709 common order.odt

¶33

Trupti

¶34

Interim Application No.1418 of 2024 (Sandip Ganpat Hadbal & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)

¶35

In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are not

¶36

entertained and stand rejected to the extent of the Petitioners who have not completed ten years. If any of them have completed ten years, the prescription laid down in Madhukar s/o. Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra) would be applicable. Insofar as equal pay/ wages are concerned, the law laid down in Sandip Ganpat Hadbal & Ors. (supra), would be applicable to the case of these Petitioners.

¶37

With these directions, both these Writ Petitions are

¶38

disposed off.

¶39

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

¶40

3 of 3

Poonam Narayan More v. State of Maharashtra Tribal Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Narayan More v. State of Maharashtra Tribal Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

B Uma Sankar vs Union Bank of India Thr Its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Mansing Shivaji Hake vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Neha Nitin Gharat (Smt. Aparna Arun Dohale) and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary School Education Department and Ors.

Anagha Abhay Mainkar vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Education Dept

The Hospital Kamgar Sanghatana Ruby Hall Clinic vs Sunil Bapu Rajput

Aher Sanjay Bajirao vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.