Disposed¶18

Nilesh Anil Muley v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Jan 2026WP/11495/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court Writ Petition 11495 of 2025 (decided 12.01.2026; Ghuge & Mantri, JJ.): petitioner absent; disposal by direction — Respondent No. 2 to adjudicate representation dated 28.10.2024 (undated as recorded) claiming salary arrears for 01.10.2014–04.08.2020 via due procedure, stakeholder notices, reasoned order within 30 days of hearing, full process within 90 days. Keywords: arrears of salary; representation; Deputy Director of Education Nashik; disposal with directions; time-bound reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions to Respondent No. 2 to decide the Petitioner's Representation per due procedure, issue notices to stakeholders if required, grant reasonable opportunity, pass a reasoned order within 30 days of conclusion of hearing, and complete the entire exercise within 90 days.

Nilesh Anil Muley vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's Representation dated 28.10.2024, claiming arrears of salary for the period 01.10.2014 to 04.08.2020, should be decided on its own merits.

¶13

Court's answer

The Petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to deal with the Representation, if not already decided, by following the due procedure laid down in law.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

If notices are required, Respondent No. 2 shall follow that procedure and grant reasonable opportunity to all stakeholders including the Petitioner.

¶19

Key takeaways

After submissions conclude, Respondent No. 2 shall pass a reasoned order within 30 days from the date of conclusion of the hearing.ratio¶19
The entire exercise of issuing notices, conducting the hearing and passing the order shall be completed within 90 days from the date of the order.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction — Writ Petition No. 11495 of 2025, Nilesh Anil Muley v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ., decided 12 January 2026. None appeared for the Petitioner. The Petitioner had sought that his Representation (described as dated 28.10.2024, though the Court records it as undated), received by the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Nashik on 28.10.2024 and claiming arrears of salary for 01.10.2014 to 04.08.2020, be decided on its own merits. The Court disposed of the Petition, directing Respondent No. 2 to deal with the Representation per due procedure laid down in law, issue notices to stakeholders if required, grant reasonable opportunity to all including the Petitioner, and pass a reasoned order within 30 days of conclusion of hearing, with the entire exercise to be completed within 90 days.

¶1

28.AS.WP.11495.2025.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 11495 OF 2025

¶4

Nilesh Anil Muley ….Petitioner

¶5

Digitally signed by VINA VINA ARVIND ARVIND KHADPE KHADPE Date: 2026.01.13 11:01:06 +0530

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶8

None appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. P. G. Sawant – AGP for State/Respondents.

¶9

….Respondents

¶10

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 12^th JANUARY, 2026

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

None present for the Petitioner, either in the Court Hall or through the V.C. mode.

¶13

The Petitioner has put forth a prayer that his Representation dated 28.10.2024, claiming arrears of salary for the period from 01.10.2014 to 04.08.2020, be decided on its own merits.

¶14

We find from the Representation, which is undated, but received by the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Nashik, on 28.10.2024, that the Petitioner has claimed that his unpaid salary for the above stated period be directed to be released.

¶15

1 of 2

¶16

Sufiyan Syed - PA

¶17

28.AS.WP.11495.2025.odt

¶18

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off with

¶19

a direction to Respondent No. 2 to deal with the said Representation, if not already decided, by following the due procedure laid down in law. If notices are required to be issued by Respondent No. 2 to call upon the stakeholders to address to Respondent No. 2 on the issue raised by the Petitioner, let such procedure be followed and reasonable opportunity be granted to all the stakeholders including the present Petitioner. After the submissions are concluded, Respondent No. 2 would pass a reasoned order within 30 days from the date of conclusion of the hearing. Let this entire exercise of issuing notices, conducting the hearing and passing the order, be completed within a period of 90 days from today.

¶20

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶21

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶22

2 of 2

¶23

Sufiyan Syed - PA

Nilesh Anil Muley v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Anil Muley v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Vrunda Skyscrapers Thr Its Partners T. S. Mittal and Anr. vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Samsuzjama Mohammed Khalil Chaudhary vs the Chief Executive Officer Badlapur Nagar Parishad and Ors.

Sachin Dewaji Chaure vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. Higher and Technical Education and Employment Dept and Ors.

Krishnan Venkateswaran Srinivasan vs Axis Bank Limited

Minal Chaudhary vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Department

Shree Nidhi Developers Thr Partner and Anr. vs Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation Thr Commissioner and Ors.