Dismissed¶¶32

Chavan Dilip Baburao and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Principle Secretary Urban Development Department and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2026WP/6256/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petitions (WP 6256, 5403, 8728 of 2024; WP(ST) 14808 of 2024; WP 1407 of 2026) by erstwhile contractual employees (Chavan Dilip Baburao, Gajanan Satish Vandarne, Kishori Narayan Kandalkar, Datta Tekale, Gitanjali Nana More) challenging a fresh advertisement after termination on 19.08.2025; earlier challenge to termination and reinstatement claim already dismissed in W.P. No.11555 of 2025 (Ghuge & Bhobe JJ., 23.12.2025); petitions dismissed; costs declined owing to petitioners' unemployment; State of Maharashtra and Pimpri – Chinchwad Municipal Corporation respondents; February 2026.

What did the court decide?

None; all the writ petitions stand dismissed and no costs are imposed. ¶¶32

Chavan Dilip Baburao and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Principle Secretary Urban Development Department and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; all the writ petitions stand dismissed and no costs are imposed.

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions challenging a fresh advertisement deserve consideration when the Petitioners, who were all party to Writ Petition No.11555 of 2025, have already had their grievance against termination from contractual service and their request for reinstatement dismissed by this Court.

¶¶31

Court's answer

In view of the dismissal of Writ Petition No.11555 of 2025 (wherein the same Petitioners' grievance against termination and request for reinstatement as contractual employees was rejected), these writ petitions challenging the fresh advertisement stand dismissed.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

Although the Court observed it could have imposed costs, it declined to impose costs on the learned Senior Advocate's plea that the Petitioners are already out of employment and desperately trying to secure a job for their livelihood.

¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ravindra V. Ghuge & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.; order dated 5th February, 2026, as modified by speaking to the minutes of that order) dismissed five writ petitions — W.P. No.6256 of 2024 (Chavan Dilip Baburao & Ors.), W.P. No.5403 of 2024 (Gajanan Satish Vandarne & Ors.), W.P. No.8728 of 2024 (Kishori Narayan Kandalkar & Ors.), W.P.(ST) No.14808 of 2024 (Datta s/o Gangadhar Tekale & Anr.) and W.P. No.1407 of 2026 (Gitanjali Nana More) — versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. The Petitioners, erstwhile contractual employees terminated on 19th August, 2025, had challenged a fresh advertisement; however, all of them were party to Writ Petition No.11555 of 2025, wherein their grievance against termination and request for reinstatement as contractual employees on their earlier contracts was dismissed by this Court (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge & Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ.) by judgment dated 23rd December, 2025. In view of that dismissal, the present writ petitions were dismissed. Though the Court observed it could have imposed costs, it refrained from doing so on the plea of Sr. Adv. Suresh Pakale that the Petitioners are out of employment and desperately seeking a job for their livelihood. Other counsel: Nilesh Desai Adv. i/by Padmaja Malgonakar Adv. for Petitioners; AGPs Nisha Mehra (WP 6256/2024), R.M. Shinde (WP 5403/2024), P.N. Diwan (WP 8728/2024), Priyanka Chavan (WP(ST) 14808/2024) and V.G. Badgujar (WP 1407/2026) for the State; Kedar B. Dighe Adv. for Respondent Nos.2 & 3/Pimpri – Chinchwad Municipal Corporation.

¶1

903-WP-6256-2024-(C)-(SPK).odt

¶2

Digitally signed by SUNNY SUNNY ANKUSHRAO ANKUSHRAO THOTE THOTE Date: 2026.02.06 12:16:03 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 6256 OF 2024

¶6

Chavan Dilip Baburao & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5403 OF 2024

¶9

Gajanan Satish Vandarne & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶10

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8728 OF 2024 Kishori Narayan Kandalkar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶11

WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 14808 OF 2024 Datta s/o Gangadhar Tekale & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶12

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1407 OF 2026

¶13

Gitanjali Nana More ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

This order has been modified by speaking to the minutes of the order dated 5^th February, 2026.

¶16

SUNNY THOTE

¶17

903-WP-6256-2024-(C)-(SPK).odt

¶18

****

¶19

Mr. Suresh Pakale, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Nilesh Desai i/by Ms. Padmaja Malgonakar, Advocate for the Petitioners in all these Petitions.

¶20

Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/6256/2024. Ms. R.M. Shinde, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/5403/2024. Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/8728/2024. Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP(ST)/ 14808/2024.

¶21

Mr. V.G. Badgujar, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/1407/2026. Mr. Kedar B. Dighe, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3/Pimpri – Chinchwad Municipal Corporation.

¶22

****

¶23

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶24

P.C. :-

¶25

All the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.11555 of 2025, are the Petitioners before us in all these Petitions. They have already been terminated from their contractual service in 19^th August, 2025. A Judgment was delivered in Writ Petition No.11555 of 2025, by this Court (Coram : Ravindra V. Ghuge & Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.J.) dated 23^rd December, 2025, whereby the Petition challenging their termination from contractual service, has been dismissed.

¶26

2 of 3

¶27

SUNNY THOTE

¶28

This order has been modified by speaking to the minutes of the order dated 5^th February, 2026.

¶29

903-WP-6256-2024-(C)-(SPK).odt

¶30

In the present Petitions, these Petitioners are

¶31

challenging a fresh advertisement, when all of them were party to Writ Petition No.11555 of 2025, wherein their grievance against termination and the request for reinstatement as contractual employees on contracts as were entered into earlier, has been dismissed.

¶32

In view of the above, these Writ Petitions stand dismissed . We could have imposed costs. However, the learned Senior Advocate has pleaded that costs may not be imposed because these Petitioners are already out of employment and they are desperately trying to secure a job for their livelihood. We are, therefore, not imposing costs.

¶33

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

¶34

SUNNY THOTE 3 of 3 This order has been modified by speaking to the minutes of the order dated 5^th February, 2026.

Chavan Dilip Baburao and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Principle Secretary Urban Development Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chavan Dilip Baburao and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Principle Secretary Urban Development Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

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

Rajendra Sambhaji Dharmalkar vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Shripati Deokar and Anr. vs the President Sinhagad Technical Education Society and Ors.

Vijayraj Salluki Gupta vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (through the Honble Municipal Comm.)

Samco Securities Ltd. vs Triton Communications Pvt. Ltd.

Rekha Singh vs the State of Maharashtra