Disposed¶28

Mahesh Baburao Khade and Ors. 19 v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, the Department of Rural and Water Conservation and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Apr 2026WP/1661/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Advance increment; Government Resolution 31.10.1989; Government Resolution 24.08.2017 prospective applicability; Zilla Parishad Kolhapur; pending representation; time-bound direction (two months); hearing and cogent reasons before adverse order; communication within four weeks; writ petitions disposed; Bombay High Court Kolhapur Bench; WP 1630/2026; WP 1661/2026.

What did the court decide?

Both Writ Petitions disposed of with directions to the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur to decide the pending representations on individual merits within two months of communication of the order; any adverse order to follow hearing, cogent recorded reasons, and communication within four weeks; no order as to costs. ¶28

Mahesh Baburao Khade and Ors. 19 vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, the Department of Rural and Water Conservation and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the representations pertaining to advance increment pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 31st October 1989 should be directed to be decided by the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur within a time-bound period. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur is directed to decide the Petitioners' pending representations by considering the individual merits of each matter, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within two months from the date of communication of this order.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Acting on the settled position (relied upon by learned counsel from prior judgments of this Court) that the Government Resolution dated 24th August 2017 applies prospectively, the Court proceeded on the basis that employees entitled before that date cannot be deprived of the benefit of advance increment.

¶23

Key takeaways

If the Zilla Parishad passes any adverse order, hearing opportunity must be given to the Petitioners, the order must be passed by recording cogent reasons, and it must be communicated to the Petitioners within four weeks from the date of passing such order.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Bench), Writ Petitions Nos. 1630 and 1661 of 2026 (decided 15 April 2026, Madhav J. Jamdar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ.): Petitioners sought a time-bound decision on their representations for advance increment pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 31st October 1989. Noting the settled position that the Government Resolution dated 24th August 2017 operates prospectively — so that employees entitled before that date cannot be denied the benefit — the Court directed the Zilla Parishad, Kolhopur to decide the pending representations on individual merits within two months of communication of the order; any adverse order must be preceded by a hearing, supported by cogent recorded reasons, and communicated within four weeks. Petitions disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

27&86-1630-2026-CWP=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

(Sr. No. 27) WRIT PETITION NO. 1630 OF 2026

¶4

Digitally signed by UDAY UDAYSHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: JAGTAP 2026.04.20 10:22:16 +0530

¶5

Ramesh Tippana Jadhav and Ors. … Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

WITH

¶7

(Sr. No. 86) WRIT PETITION NO. 1661 OF 2026

¶8

Mahesh Baburao Khade and Ors. … Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, The … Respondents Department Of Rural And Water Conservation and Ors.

¶11

Ms. Sakshi Jankar a/w Eshan Nayak h/f Datta H. Pawar for the Petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Kedar Lad a/w Ms. Poonam Dhotre for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Ms. T.J. Kapre, AGP for Respondent – State in WP 1630/2026. Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for Respondent – State in WP 1661/2026.

¶13

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR & PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 15^th APRIL, 2026.

¶15

P. C. :

¶16

1. By the present petitions, the Petitioners raised a limited grievance

¶17

that the representations pertaining to advance increment in salary pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 31^st October 1989, be

¶18

1 of 3

¶19

Uday S. Jagtap

¶20

27&86-1630-2026-CWP=.doc

¶21

directed to be decided by the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur within a time bound period.

¶22

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners points out catena of judgments wherein this Court consistently held that the Government Resolution dated 24^th August 2017 would be applicable prospectively. Therefore, the employees who were entitled before that date cannot be deprived the benefit of advance increment.

¶23

3. In the light of this settled position of law, we direct the Respondent – Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur to decide the pending representation of the Petitioners by considering the individual merits of the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.

¶24

4. It is made clear that if the Respondent – Zilla Parishad is passing any adverse order, then hearing opportunity be given to the Petitioners and by recording cogent reasons passed the order and same be communicated to the Petitioners within a period of 4 weeks from the date of passing such order.

¶25

2 of 3

¶26

Uday S. Jagtap

¶27

27&86-1630-2026-CWP=.doc

¶28

5. With the above direction, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No

¶29

order as to costs.

¶30

[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. ]

¶31

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶32

3 of 3

¶33

Uday S. Jagtap

Mahesh Baburao Khade and Ors. 19 v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, the Department of Rural and Water Conservation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Baburao Khade and Ors. 19 v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, the Department of Rural and Water Conservation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Proposed Shri Jotirling Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Society Ltd. Thr Its Secretary vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amar Rajendra Nikam vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Thr. Its Managing Director) and Ors.

Amar Rajendra Nikam vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Thr. Its Managing Director) and Ors.

Prabhakar S/O Sakharam Kokare and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept and Ors.

Kashinath S/O Yashvant Kumbhar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary and Ors.

Chandrakant Kisan Ghanwat and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary the Dept. of General Administration and Ors.