Dismissed¶21

Manda Khushalrao Tahkik v. the Chief Executive Officer and Another

Bombay HC12 Mar 2026WP/1653/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Aurangabad bench (BHC-AUG) writ petition 1653/2026, decided 12-03-2026, coram Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar; petitioner Manda Khushalrao Tahkik (Zilla Parishad primary teacher) v. Chief Executive Officer and Another; subject: 'No Work No Pay' treatment from 30.05.2017, denial of salary for 01.06.2017–31.01.2018 and of two increments due 01.07.2017 and 01.07.2018; surplus teacher transfer, Shirur-Kasar Panchayat Samitee, seniority dispute with Kishor Pandurang Supekar, MEPS Rules, absorption order dated 29.01.2018, Article 226 of the Constitution; outcome: writ petition dismissed, no relief granted.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner acted upon the order dated 29.01.2018 and accepted her position under it; having done so, she cannot now agitate the 'No Work No Pay' treatment imposed from 30.05.2017. ¶17

Manda Khushalrao Tahkik vs the Chief Executive… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary for the period 01.06.2017 to 31.01.2018, during which she continued to serve at Zilla Parishad, C.P.S., Jamb despite the 'No Work No Pay' direction in the absorption order. +3 more

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner acted upon the order dated 29.01.2018 and accepted her position under it; having done so, she cannot now agitate the 'No Work No Pay' treatment imposed from 30.05.2017.

¶17

Key takeaways

The letters dated 03.05.2017, 14.05.2017, 15.05.2017 and 31.05.2017 were not before the Court and could not be said to be objections; since the communication dated 29.01.2018 clearly directed 'No Work No Pay' from 30.05.2017 until resumption of charge, the petitioner cannot deviate from that position.ratio¶20
The petitioner took no objection to the seniority list prepared under the MEPS Rules and did not challenge the surplus-declaration order until filing the present petition.ratio¶17
No case was made out for exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; accordingly the Writ Petition stands dismissed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.), Writ Petition No. 1653 of 2026, decided 12 March 2026 (neutral citation 2026:BHC-AUG:11814-DB) — Manda Khushalrao Tahkik v. Chief Executive Officer and Another. A primary teacher (appointed 04.08.1995) declared surplus in the 2017 Shirur-Kasar Panchayat Samitee list sought salary for 01.06.2017–31.01.2018 (period during which she served at Z.P. C.P.S. Jamb) and release of two increments due on 01.07.2017 and 01.07.2018. Her absorption order dated 29.01.2018 expressly provided that the period from the first absorption order of 30.05.2017 until resumption of charge would be treated as 'No Work No Pay'; she resumed duty on 01.02.2018. Held: having acted upon and accepted the order dated 29.01.2018, she cannot now agitate the 'No Work No Pay' treatment; the 2017 letters (dated 03.05.2017, 14.05.2017, 15.05.2017, 31.05.2017) cited as objections were not produced before the Court; she had taken no objection to the seniority list nor challenged the surplus declaration. No case was made out for exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; writ petition dismissed.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:11814-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1653 OF 2026

¶4

Manda Khushalrao Tahkik VERSUS

¶5

The Chief Executive Officer And Another

¶6

Mr. A. S. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for respondent-State

¶7

CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ. DATE : 12^th March, 2026

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

Present petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order dated 28.01.2018 thereby denying the grant of salary to petitioner between 01.06.2017 to 31.01.2018 and also the release of two increment which ought to have been released on 01.07.2017 to 01.07.2018.

¶10

Heard learned Advocate for petitioner. He submits that the petitioner came to be appointed vide order dated 04.08.1995. Her date of birth is 01.06.1968, whereas the date of birth of her colleague Shri. Kishor Pandurang Supekar is 29.06.1975. They both came to be appointed on the same day; however, though the petitioner ought to have been considered as senior to Shri. Kishor Supekar, he has been shown as senior. Taking into consideration the seniority list of primary

¶11

1 of 4

¶12

934-WP-1653-2026.odt

¶13

teachers at Zilla Parishad level, the petitioner came to be declared as surplus. The Block Education Officer had prepared lists of surplus teachers in Shirur - Kasar Panchayat Samitee wherein she as well as Kishor Supekar were declared as surplus. The persons in the lists of surplus became liable to be transferred out of Shirur-Kasar Taluka. On account of availability of vacancy in Shirur-Kasar Taluka itself, Mr. Supekar came to be accommodated in that taluka and was not required to be absorbed elsewhere. However, the petitioner was then posted in Zilla Parishad Secondary School at Talwada, Tq. Georai. She had made representation for inadvertent mistake occurred in showing Joining date of Mr. Supekar and therefore, she was not allowed to be relieved from the school where she was working i.e., Zilla Parisahd Primary C.P.S. Jamb, Tq. Shirur- Kasar. She continued to render her service till she was posted at Zilla Parishad, Primary School, Malewadi, Tq. Shirur-Kasar. The respondent No. 1 from the date of first absorption order i.e., 30.05.2017 till the incumbents join on the modified absorbed place, were directed to be treated on ‘No Work No Pay’. The petitioner was relieved from the School, Z. P., C.P.S., Jamb on 31.01.2018 and thereafter, she resumed her duty on 01.02.2018 at the new post. Though she was served at Zilla Parishad, Jamb between 30.05.2017 to 31.01.2018, no salary was paid to her. She had made various representations from time to time however, they have fallen into depths. When the petitioner was working, there was

¶14

2 of 4

¶15

934-WP-1653-2026.odt

¶16

no question of ‘No Work No Pay’ principal to be applied in her case.

¶17

Here it is to be noted that this is clear and also undisputed that though the petitioner was appointed on 04.08.1995 and the seniority list might have been prepared from time to time as per the rules and regulations in MEPS Rules, objection has not been taken by the petitioner regarding seniority list. Documents supporting this aspect have not been produced on record and therefore, we are making this statement. It appears that in 2017, list of surplus teachers from ShirurKasar Panchayat Samitee was prepared in which the name of the petitioner was reflected. She has not challenged the said order till the filing of the present petition. Thereafter there is communication dated 29.01.2018 wherein order in respect of the petitioner has been passed though the petitioner was declared as surplus. She has then being absorbed at a different school, but in that order itself i.e., order dated 29.01.2018, it is specifically mentioned that from the date of the order of absorption i.e., 30.05.2017 till the concerned employee resumes the charge, this duration would be taken on ‘No Work No Pay’ basis. Now, it appears that the petitioner has acted upon this order dated 29.01.2018. She accepted her position and therefore, now she cannot agitate the same.

¶18

3 of 4

¶19

934-WP-1653-2026.odt

¶20

Learned Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out the references quoted in the letter given by the petitioner on 04.11.2022 wherein mentioned that letters dated 03.05.2017, 14.05.2017, 15.05.2017, 31.05.2017 have been given; however, those documents are not before this Court, and therefore, we cannot say that the said letter was in respect of taking objection. When already in the letter dated 29.01.2018 it has been made clear that the appointment or absorption at different places has been given with the direction that since the date of the process of absorption i.e., 30.05.2017 till the resumption of charge would be treated as ‘No Work No Pay’, then the petitioner cannot deviate herself from this position.

¶21

We find that there is no case made out for exercise of powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶22

(Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.)

¶23

(Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

¶24

B. S. Joshi

¶25

4 of 4

¶26

934-WP-1653-2026.odt

Manda Khushalrao Tahkik v. the Chief Executive Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manda Khushalrao Tahkik v. the Chief Executive Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Keshav Munde Since Minor Thr His Guardian Keshav Kishanrao Munde vs the Consortium of National Law Universities Thr Its Secretary and Another

Suruchi English Primary Residential School and Jr College vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Pranil Sharanappa Nagure and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Ashish Ghanshyam Vaishnav vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jagannath so Mallikarjun Khot vs The State of Maharashtra

Rameshwar Makhandas Vaishnav vs the State of Maharashtra and Others