Disposed

Nagesh Narayan Barbind v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

PENSIONARY BENEFITS – COUNTING OF TEMPORARY/PRE-REGULARISATION SERVICE

Bombay HC17 Feb 2026WP/492/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No. 492 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, decided 17.02.2026; oral order per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J., sitting with Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J. Petitioner Nagesh Narayan Barbind (advocate Ramchandra J. Nirmal) versus State of Maharashtra and another (AGP R. S. Wani); Respondent No. 2 not named in the text. Petitioner served as temporary Watchman under Res

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions to Respondent No. 2 to decide the Petitioner's representation dated 04.09.2025 within three months (if not already decided) and to decide it in accordance with Jag

Nagesh Narayan Barbind Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

1 926WP492.2026.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

926 WRIT PETITION NO. 492 OF 2026

¶4

Nagesh Narayan Barbind

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

¶7

Mr. Ramchandra J. Nirmal - Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R. S. Wani - AGP for the State

¶8

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI

¶9

AND

¶10

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 17^TH FEBRUARY, 2026

¶12

ORAL ORDER [ Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] : -

¶13

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to Respondents to consider the Petitioner’s representation dated 04.09.2025, to take into account the Petitioner’s temporary service for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits, and to refix the Petitioner’s pension accordingly.

¶14

The Petitioner states that since 1995 he has been working with Respondent No. 2 as a Watchman on a temporary basis. Thereafter, on 03.05.2021, Respondent No. 2 made the services of the Petitioner permanent. It is the Petitioner’s submission that, during the initial period of his employment, he was employed with the Municipal Council, which was subsequently converted into a Municipal Corporation.

¶15

2 926WP492.2026.odt

¶16

The Petitioner further states that he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2025 and, at the time of his retirement, he was a permanent employee of Respondent No. 2. The Executive Officer of Respondent No. 2, by communication dated 13.08.2025, directed him to comply with the requirements and submit the necessary documents for the purpose of processing his pensionary benefits. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted the requisite documents to the office of Respondent No. 2.

¶17

However, the Petitioner apprehends that his initial services, during which he was not a permanent employee, will not be counted by the Department for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits. Therefore, he approached Respondent No. 2 with a request to consider his temporary service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

¶18

The representation dated 04.09.2025 submitted by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 2 is annexed to the present petition. In the said representation, the Petitioner has provided particulars of his temporary service and has requested the competent authority to take into account his service from 1995, being the date of his initial appointment, for pensionary benefits, as he served continuously as a temporary employee until his services were regularized and thereafter until his superannuation.

¶19

As the prayer in the present petition is limited to issuing a

¶20

3 926WP492.2026.odt

¶21

direction to Respondent No. 2, we do not find it necessary to issue notice to Respondent No. 2. The learned AGP waives notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Taking into consideration the pendency of the representation dated 04.09.2025, we direct Respondent No. 2 to decide the Petitioner’s representation within a period of three (3) months, if it has not already been decided. We also direct Respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the Petitioner dated 04.09.2025 in accordance with the judgment of this Court in Jagjeevan Jaikumar Sanghai v. Parbhani Municipal Corporation, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 356.

¶22

With the aforesaid directions, the Petition stands disposed

¶23

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

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

¶25

SG Punde

¶26

Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 25/02/2026 11:01:19

Nagesh Narayan Barbind v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagesh Narayan Barbind v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases