Pramod Vikram Rathod vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Pramod Vikram Rathod vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner's pending representation and pay any pending salary and lawful dues within four months; the principal prayers (re-employment, first preference in future recruitment, declaration of illegality) were not entertained, the natural-justice objection having been rejected.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, engaged on successive fixed-term contracts under MSRLM, was entitled to re-employment or first preference in future recruitment for similar posts, and whether his discontinuation without notice or hearing violated principles of natural justice (declaration of illegality/arbitrariness sought). +1 more

Court's answer

The appointment letters demonstrate that the petitioner's services were engaged on contract basis for specified periods; though continued from time to time, there was no promise of indefinite/permanent employment, and the petitioner accepted the appointment orders knowing the engagements were temporary and for particular periods.

Ratio / Principle

In accordance with the appointment orders as issued, there was no necessity to issue a separate notice or provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before non-renewal/discontinuance.

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the contention that the discontinuation of the petitioner's contractual services violated principles of natural justice was rejected as incorrect and unjustified.ratio¶29
On pending salary and lawful dues: if the petitioner's representation is pending and any pending salary/lawful dues exist with the respondents, the respondents shall decide the representation and pay the dues and pending salary within FOUR MONTHS.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Writ Petition No.10927 of 2025, order dated 17 January 2026 (Coram: Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.; order per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.) - Pramod Vikram Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. The petitioner, engaged from 24 March 2015 as Block Coordinator and later as Block Manager (Financial Inclusion, Job Placement and Skill Development) under MSRLM/Zilla Parishad, Nanded on successive fixed-term contracts (ultimately three-monthly orders up to 1 February 2023), sought re-employment, first preference in future recruitment, a declaration that his discontinuation was illegal, and release of pending dues. Held: repeated renewal of specified-period contracts conferred no right to indefinite or permanent employment, the petitioner having accepted the appointment orders with knowledge of their temporary nature; under such appointment orders no separate notice or hearing was necessary before non-renewal, hence no violation of natural justice. Regarding pending salary and lawful dues, the respondents were directed to decide the petitioner's pending representation and pay the dues, if any, within FOUR MONTHS. Writ Petition disposed of.

2026:BHC-AUG:2175-DB

wp.10927.25

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.10927 OF 2025

Pramod Vikram Rathod, Age-38 years, Occu:Nil, R/o-Shivleela Bhavan, House No.239, Brahman Galli, Ward No.12, Taluka-Mahur, District-Nanded. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), UMED-Maharashtra State Rural Livelihood Mission (MSRLM), 5^th Floor, CIDCO Bhavan (South Wing), CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai, 2) Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Jilha Parishad (ZP), Nanded, 3) Project Director (PD), District Rural Development Agency, Nanded,

1. District Mission Manager (DMM), Maharashtra State Rural District Mission, Management Unit, Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS

... Mr. Abid R. Shaikh Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. Neha B. Kamble, A.G.P. for Resp. No.1. Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar Advocate for Resp. No.2. …

wp.10927.25

2

CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE : 17^th JANUARY, 2026

ORDER [PER HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.] :

By way of present Petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to respondent No.1 to re-employ the petitioner as Block Manage-Finance Inclusion, Job Placement and Skill Development under Maharashtra State Rural Livelihood Mission (MSRLM). The petitioner alternatively prayed for appropriate directions to the respondents to give the first preference to the petitioner in any future recruitment process for similar posts, considering his past services, experience and expertise. The petitioner also seeks declaration that the action of the respondents in discontinuing the petitioner from service without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights. The petitioner further prays for direction to the respondents to release the pending salary and lawful dues for the period he rendered services.

It is the case of the petitioner that he came to be appointed as Block Coordinator by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded on contractual basis for eleven months on

wp.10927.25

3

24^th March 2015, initially and thereafter respondent No.2 has renewed the contract of the petitioner and extended the tenure from time to time till 23^rd April 2023. The petitioner further states that though he was relieved initially on 23^rd April 2018, still taking into consideration the services he has rendered, respondent No.2 issued fresh appointment letter and appointed the petitioner as Block Manager – Financial Inclusion, Job Placement and Skill Development with Maharashtra State Rural Livelihood Mission for the period of eleven months. After the said period of eleven months expired, the petitioner again made representation for renewal of his contract on 22^nd March 2019, which came to be renewed under the Livelihood Mission for eleven months period from 26^th March 2019. Subsequently respondent No.1, upon taking into consideration the performance of the petitioner, started issuing appointment orders for the period of three-three months up till 1^st February 2023. Subsequently, the contract of the petitioner has not been renewed and therefore, he has approached this Court.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s termination of employment contract has been unilateral and neither any hearing was given to the petitioner nor

wp.10927.25

4

any process was followed by respondent No.2. According to him, it is violative of principles of natural justice and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for re-employment. He further argues that the petitioner has rendered the services at least for eight years during his prime age and therefore, it is the primary duty of the State authorities to consider his candidature for employment with respondent No.2.

Heard learned AGP appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. Pulkundwar appearing for respondent No.2 Zilla Parishad, Nanded.

Learned AGP argues that the employment of the petitioner, throughout the period, was on contract basis and the petitioner was well aware of the nature of his employment being temporary. Merely because the contract has been renewed from time to time, it does not repose any statutory right in the petitioner to claim continuous employment with respondent Nos.3 and 4.

Learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 argues on the similar line and prays for dismissal of the Petition.

wp.10927.25

5

We have heard both the sides and also perused the documents that have been placed on record. The appointment letters issued by respondents from time to time to the petitioner, clearly demonstrates that the petitioner’s services were engaged on contract basis for a specified period. His services have been continued from time to time but there is absolutely no promise of employment, indefinitely to the petitioner. Thus, while accepting the appointment orders from the respondents, the petitioner was well aware that his services were required for a temporary and that too for a particular period and they are not permanent in nature. In accordance with the appointment order which have been issued, there was no necessity to issue separate notice or providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner’s Advocate that there is violation of principles of natural justice, is absolutely incorrect and unjustified.

Secondly, in respect of prayer clause “E”, whereby the petitioner has prayed for release of his pending salary and lawful dues, the petitioner points out that there are representations which he has forwarded to the respondents claiming for pending

wp.10927.25

6

salary and lawful dues. If such representation is pending and if at all there is any pending salary and lawful dues with the respondents, then the respondents to decide the said representation and pay the dues and pending salary to the petitioner, within a period of FOUR MONTHS from today.

In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

[HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE

asb/JAN26