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

¶1

Digitally signed by GAURI AMIT GAURI GAEKWAD AMIT Date: GAEKWAD 2026.02.02 12:22:39 +0530

¶2

904.WP-17745-2025.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.17745 OF 2025

¶5

Sandhya Ajay Awate ….Petitioner Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17713 OF 2025

¶7

Sachin Dewaji Chaure ….Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40370 OF 2025

¶10

Anagha Vijay Malkapurkar ….Petitioner Versus

¶11

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40372 OF 2025

¶12

Pandit Tulshiram Yewale ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40376 OF 2025 Shital Abhishek Patil ….Petitioner Versus

¶13

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40710 OF 2025 Pundlik Narayanrao Ghate ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents

¶14

Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 6

¶15

904.WP-17745-2025.odt

¶16

WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40711 OF 2025

¶17

Sandeep Nilkanthrao Zade ….Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40712 OF 2025

¶20

Sandeep Wamanrao Matey ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.153 OF 2026

¶21

Ravindra Pandit Patil ….Petitioner Versus

¶22

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40884 OF 2025

¶23

Ratan Ramchandra Kamble ….Petitioner Versus

¶24

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40887 OF 2025

¶25

Ranjana Jitendra Mahajan ….Petitioner Versus

¶26

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents ----

¶27

Mr. Avinash Belge for the Petitioner in all Petitions. Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. GP for the Respondent – State in WP/17745/2025.

¶28

Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP/17713/2025.

¶29

2 of 6

¶30

Gauri Gaekwad

¶31

904.WP-17745-2025.odt

¶32

Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP(st)/40370/2025. Mr. Aditya Deolekar, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP(st)/40372/2025. Mr. Vijay Badgujar, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP(st)/40376/2025. Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP(st)/40710/2025. Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP(st)/40711/2025. Ms. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP(st)/40712/2025. Mr. Karan Thorat, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent – State in WP/153/2026. Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP(st)/40884/2025. Ms. N.M. Mehra, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP(st)/40887/2025.

¶33

Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent No.4 in all Petitions. Mr. Aadesh V. Konde-Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Sainath S. Garade, Ms. Shruti P. Pokale and Mr. Yogesh A. Sakale i/b. Mr. Sangram Desai for Respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶34

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶35

ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶36

DATE : 30^th JANUARY, 2026

¶37

P.C. :-

¶38

These matters were heard on 28^th January 2026, 29^th January, 2026 and today.

¶39

An innocuous prayer has been put forth by the Petitioners in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 15^th July,

¶40

3 of 6

¶41

Gauri Gaekwad

¶42

904.WP-17745-2025.odt

¶43

2025 delivered in Writ Petition No.14685 of 2024 ( Babasaheb Dyanoba Garje v/s. Chaudhary Atar Singh Yadav Memorial Education Trust and Ors. ) along with other connected matters. In the said judgment, this Court concluded that the orders passed by the Grievance Committee, unless challenged by the aggrieved parties and the matter being sub-judice, are required to be implemented by the Management. If such orders are not implemented, the University would be obliged to exercise its powers under Statute No.1 of 2019, namely “The Maharashtra Public Universities (Penalties to be imposed upon Erring Affiliated Colleges/Recognized Institutions) Uniform Statutes, 2018” (hereinafter referred to as “the Penalties Uniform Statutes”).

¶44

As such, if the Management has challenged the order of

¶45

the Grievance Committee, these Petitions preferred by the beneficiaries seeking directions to the University to give effect to the orders of the Grievance Committee and to take action against the Management, would not survive, since the orders of the Grievance Committee would then be subject to adjudication. However, if the orders are not challenged, the University has to proceed

¶46

4 of 6

¶47

Gauri Gaekwad

¶48

904.WP-17745-2025.odt

¶49

expeditiously and initiate appropriate steps, including disciplinary action, under the Penalties Uniform Statutes.

¶50

In all these cases, the Grievance Committee has passed orders on 20^th June, 2024. The learned Advocate for the Management, Mr. Desai, who has strongly opposed all these Petitions and prayed that these Petitions deserve to be dismissed, states, on instructions from the Management, that the order of the Grievance Committee is yet not challenged.

¶51

The learned Advocate for the Management, submits on instructions that the Management has already granted the benefit of the 7^th Pay Commission with effect from 1^st January, 2025. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners disputes the said statement and submits that the 7^th Pay Commission was implemented only with effect from 1^st January, 2025, though the recommendations pertain to the period from 1^st January, 2016 to 31^st December, 2025. The Petitioners, therefore, reserve their right to claim the benefits from 1^st January, 2016 to 31^st December, 2024 in view of the order passed by the Grievance Committee.

¶52

5 of 6

¶53

Gauri Gaekwad

¶54

904.WP-17745-2025.odt

¶55

6. In view of the above, all these Petitions are disposed off

¶56

in the light of the final order of this Court dated 15^th July, 2025 in Babasaheb Dyanoba Garje (supra).

¶57

Needless to state, unless there is any legal impediment,

¶58

the University would be at liberty to follow the course set out in Babasaheb Dyanoba Garje (supra) and take appropriate action in accordance with the Penalties Uniform Statutes, expeditiously.

¶59

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶60

6 of 6

¶61

Gauri Gaekwad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Madhubala Bharatnath Yadav Alias vs the Commissioner the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Balakrishna Maruti Gore vs the Principal Controller of Defense Accounts Navy Mumbai

Umesh Subhash Shirke and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Principal Sec. Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Chatrapati Shahu Maharaj Shikshan and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Rukmini Jagannath Satranje vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai

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