Disposed¶17

Janardhan Baburao Kawade v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC9 Feb 2026WP/183/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second ACPS benefit; revised Assured Career Progression (ACPS) after 24 years' service; Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010 applicable from 01.10.2006; Government Resolution dated 27.12.2018; Zilla Parishad Mistri Grade-II retiree (retired 31.04.2008); representation dated 29.05.2024 undecided; directions to Respondent No. 3 to decide representation in 8 weeks and disburse if eligible within 2 months; Writ Petition No. 183 of 2026; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; per curiam (Kankanwadi and Venegavkar, JJ.).

What did the court decide?

Directions to Respondent No. 3 to decide the Petitioner's representation dated 29.05.2024 within eight (8) weeks; if the Petitioner is found eligible, disbursement of the amount after undertaking all necessary procedures within a further two (2) months. ¶17

Janardhan Baburao Kawade vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 must grant and pay the Petitioner the second benefit under the revised ACPS after completion of 24 years of service, in view of the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010 (applicable from 01.10.2006). +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

If the Petitioner is found eligible for the second ACPS benefit, the amount shall be disbursed, after undertaking all necessary procedures, within a period of two months after the representation is decided.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Since the Petitioner's representation dated 29.05.2024 remains pending and undecided, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing Respondent No. 3 to decide the representation within eight weeks from the date of the order.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench; Writ Petition No. 183 of 2026; decided 09.02.2026) filed by Janardhan Baburao Kawade, a retired Zilla Parishad employee (Mistri, Grade-II from 01.04.1980; retired 31.04.2008), seeking directions for grant and payment of the second benefit under the revised ACPS after completion of 24 years of service as per the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010 (applicable from 01.10.2006), payable from 11.04.2007. The first ACPS benefit had been obtained through Writ Petition No. 10223 of 2018, in which this Court had directed accordsal of the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 27.12.2018; the second benefit, however, was not granted, and the Petitioner's representation dated 29.05.2024 remained undecided. Per curiam order of Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.: the Writ Petition disposed of by directing Respondent No. 3 to decide the representation within eight weeks; if the Petitioner is found eligible, the amount to be disbursed after all necessary procedures within a further two months.

¶1

1 19WP183.2026.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

19 WRIT PETITION NO. 183 OF 2026

¶4

Janardhan Baburao Kawade

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶7

Mr. Salgare G. Salgare - Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. B. Narwade - AGP for State Mr. S. R. Dheple – Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4

¶8

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND

¶9

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 09^TH FEBRUARY, 2026

¶11

PER COURT : -

¶12

The present petition has been filed seeking directions to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to grant and pay the second benefit under the revised ACPS to the Petitioner after completion of 24 years of service, in view of the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010. The second prayer is to consider the representation submitted by the Petitioner on 29.05.2024, praying for grant of the second benefit under the revised ACPS from 11.04.2007, after completion of 24 years of service, as per the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010, applicable from 01.10.2006.

¶13

The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the Petitioner was an employee of the Zilla Parishad, serving on the post of Mistri, Grade-II, from 01.04.1980. He retired on 31.04.2008. When the first ACPS benefit was not granted, the Petitioner and similarly situated persons approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 10223 of 2018, wherein the order came to be passed that the Respondents shall, after confirming the date of retirement of the Petitioner and after the

¶14

2 19WP183.2026.odt

¶15

conclusion that the Petitioner had retired between 01.01.2006 to 26.02.2009, shall accord the benefit to the petitioners of Government Resolution dated 27.12.2018. Thereafter, the Petitioner was granted the first benefit, however, the second benefit was not granted. He submitted several representations, the last being dated 29.05.2024. When the same was not decided, he approached this Court. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the purpose of the Petition would be served if directions are issued to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to consider the representation dated 29.05.2024.

¶16

The learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. Dheple, learned Advocate, waives service of notice for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶17

In view of the fact that the representation submitted by the Petitioner is still pending and has not yet been decided, we dispose of the Writ Petition by directing Respondent No. 3 to decide the same within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. If the Petitioner is found eligible, the amount shall be disbursed after undertaking all necessary procedures, within a period of two (2) months thereafter.

¶18

[HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE

¶19

SG Punde

¶20

Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/02/2026 19:43:26

Janardhan Baburao Kawade v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janardhan Baburao Kawade v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Ms Shivneri Construction through Its Prop Sharad Ratanrao Yadav vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amol Subhash Bhadane vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Shalimar Transport and Carting Contractor through Its Proprietor vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Godavari Shikshan Sanstha Gondi through Its Secretary vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunita Ravindra Badgujar and Another vs the District Collector Dhule and Others

Sudhakar Ramsing Jadhav and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others