Pramod Govindrao Sudame vs The State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Pramod Govindrao Sudame vs The State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to approach respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by filing representations within two weeks; respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to consider the representations within eight weeks of receipt on their own merits, taking into account the Government Resolutions and the earlier decisions of this Court. No merits relief granted at this stage.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents ought to be directed, by writ of mandamus, to re-fix the petitioners' pay-scale so as to include the additional increments granted in view of the order in Writ Petition No.9967 of 2021 dated 06.10.2022, and to pay/release monetary benefits of Additional/Advance increments for 'Excellent Work' with consequential benefits, and to refund the amount recovered from the petitioners with interest. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

A petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus should first approach the concerned authority; accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to approach respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively by filing representations within a period of two weeks.

Key takeaways

Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are to consider the representations filed by the respective petitioners within eight weeks of receipt; the decision is to be taken on its own merits, considering the Government Resolutions as well as the earlier decisions of this Court.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus – Pay-scale re-fixation – Monetary benefits of Additional/Advance increments for 'Excellent Work' – Petitioners sought re-fixation of pay-scale including additional increments granted in view of earlier order in Writ Petition No.9967 of 2021 dated 06.10.2022, payment/release of monetary benefits with consequential benefits, and refund of the amount recovered from them with interest – Held, petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus should first approach the concerned authority – Writ petition disposed of, directing petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to file representations before respondent Nos. 4 and 5 within two weeks – Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to consider the representations within eight weeks of receipt, on their own merits, taking into account the Government Resolutions and the earlier decisions of this Court.

2026:BHC-AUG:16620-DB

911-wp-1654-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

911 WRIT PETITION NO.1654 OF 2026

Pramod Govindrao Sudame and another

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra and others

Mr. Gajanan S. Shete, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondents/State.

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

DATE : 17 APRIL 2026

ORDER :

. Present petition has been filed for following reliefs :-

“B) By issuing writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature, to direct the respondents to re-fix the pay-scale of petitioners thereby including additional increments granted by respondents in view of (Annexure-B) order of this Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.9967 of 2021 dated 06.10.2022.

C) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature, the

[1]

911-wp-1654-2026.odt

respondents may be directed to pay/release monetary benefits of Additional/Advance increments for “Excellent Work” granted to petitioners in view of (Annexure-“B”) with consequential benefits to the petitioners by fixing reformative sixth pay scales and for that purpose issue necessary direction or order to the respondents and to refund the amount recovered from the petitioners with interest and consequential benefits thereon.”

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners.

After hearing learned Advocate for the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners have directly approached this Court taking into consideration the decisions of this Court in the earlier matters. In fact, when the petitioners are seeking writ of mandamus, they should approach the concerned authority first. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition by directing petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to approach respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively by filing representations within a period of two weeks. Though we are not issuing notices to respondent Nos.4 and 5 and are only directing them to consider the representations of the petitioners, we direct respondent Nos.4 and 5 to consider the representations that would be filed by the respective petitioners within a period of eight weeks after receipt of such representations.

[2]

911-wp-1654-2026.odt

The decision to be taken on its own merits, however, at the same time, the Government Resolutions as well as the earlier decisions of this Court be considered by respondent Nos.4 and 5.

[ NEERAJ P. DHOTE ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

scm

[3]