Dnyandeo Waman Chaudhari vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Additional Chief Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dnyandeo Waman Chaudhari vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Additional Chief Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition withdrawn by counsel and disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for the family pension claim; the appropriate authority to take note of the time spent before this Court for any limitation point.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who contends he was appointed as a labourer with respondent No.3, put in 34 years of continuous service and was thereby a government servant, is entitled to grant of family pension as per Rules 30 and 57 of the M.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1982. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

In view of counsel's statement made upon instructions seeking withdrawal, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority.

Key takeaways

The appropriate authority is to take note of the time spent by the petitioner before this Court in respect of any point of limitation that arises.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Kankanwadi and Kadethankar, JJ., per curiam), order dated 06.05.2026 in Writ Petition No. 5074 of 2026: The petitioner, contending he had been appointed as a labourer with respondent No.3 and had rendered 34 years of continuous service so as to be a government servant, sought a mandamus directing grant of family pension as per Rules 30 and 57 of the M.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1982. Prior course: complaint (ULP) No. 1616 of 1999 before the Industrial Court, Jalgaon ended with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being held to have committed unfair labour practice and being directed to pay wages and other monetary benefits of a permanent employee; Writ Petition No. 2949 of 2003 seeking greater reliefs was confirmed by this Court on 17.03.2022; the State's challenge to the Industrial Court judgment was dismissed on 28.11.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereupon sought withdrawal; the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate authority, directing that authority to take note of the time spent before this Court for any point of limitation.

( 1 ) 936 WP 5074 OF 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:20893-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

936 WRIT PETITION NO. 5074 OF 2026

DNYANDEO WAMAN CHAUDHARI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS

Mr. Vijay Y. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent/s – State

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ. DATE : 06.05.2026

PER COURT :-

. Present petition has been filed for the following relief :

“B. To issued writ of mandamus or any other writ, or direction in the like nature, to direct the respondents authorities to grant family pension to the petitioner as per the Rules 30, and 57 of the M.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1982.”

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. Learned AGP points

out that the petitioner is contending that he was appointed as a labourer with respondent No.3 and had put in 34 years of continuous service with respondent No.3. Thereby, the petitioner intends to contend that he was a government servant and therefore, he states that he is entitled for the pension

( 2 ) 936 WP 5074 OF 2026

as per the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and therefore, he should initially approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

It appears that the petitioner had approached the Industrial Court at Jalgaon by filing complaint (ULP) No.1616 of 1999. It was then held that the present respondent Nos.2 and 3 had committed unfair labour practice and therefore, they were directed to pay wages and other monitory benefits of permanent employee to the present petitioner. The present petitioner had then approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2949 of 2003 seeking more reliefs than those granted by the Industrial Court. However, this Court, by order dated 17.03.2022, confirmed the order passed by the Industrial Court. The state had also then challenged the judgment passed in the complaint before the Industrial Court by order dated 28.11.2024, dismissed the petition filed by the State. Under such circumstance, now if the petitioner intends that he should get pension, then he should first approach the appropriate authority and cannot directly come to this Court.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner thereupon seeks withdrawal of the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate authority.

( 3 ) 936 WP 5074 OF 2026

In view of the said statement made upon instructions, we dispose

of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority.

The authority to take note of the time spent before this Court in case of any point of limitation that arises.

( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

PRW