STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. ADDL. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES, POWER AND LABOUR DEPT., AND ORS vs MANOHAR LAXMANRAO NIRATKAR AND OTHERS — WP/5846/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section 226,227. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 28th April 2026.

CNR: HCBM040268982025

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

14th October 2025

e-Filing Number

22-08-2025

Filing Number

WP/19585/2025

Filing Date

26-08-2025

Registration No

WP/5846/2025

Registration Date

30-09-2025

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJ D. WAKODE

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJ D. WAKODE

Bench Type

Division

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

28th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226,227
Administrative Tribunal Act
Mah. Civil Services Pension Rules

Petitioner(s)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. ADDL. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES, POWER AND LABOUR DEPT., AND ORS

Adv. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

THE DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT PRINTING AND STATIONERY, MUMBAI

THE MANAGER, GOVERNMENT PRESS AND BOOK DEPOT, NAGPUR

Respondent(s)

MANOHAR LAXMANRAO NIRATKAR AND OTHERS

Adv. ,SHUBHANKAR S. PHADNIS,NARAYAN CHANDRASHEKHAR PHADNIS,(FOR R 1 TO

,SHUBHANKAR S. PHADNIS,NARAYAN CHANDRASHEKHAR PHADNIS,(FOR LRS. OF

,NARAYAN CHANDRASHEKHAR PHADNIS 1123

GIRISH RAMCHANDRA JOGLEKAR

SANJAY HARISHCHANDRA GANVEER

VIJAY MAROTRAO WAKODE

RAJENDRA KRUSHNARAO PATHADE

ANIL MAROTRAO GODE

KEWALKISHOR RUPCHAND MESHRAM

ARUN WAMANRAO MOTGHARE

GANESH SUBBARAO NAIDU

NARENDRA SUKHDEORAO KUKDE

SHIVNATH SOMAJI BHUTE

VIKAS BAKSHI SELOKAR

MAHENDRA MANIRAM HADKE

GAJANAN JANARDAN LABHE

PRADIP GOPALRAO THOMBRE

DURGASHANKAR DEVRAO DAKHOLE

BHALCHANDRA VITHOBA BHIVGADE

MALIK ABDUL SAMAD

RAMKUSAN KEWALRAM BHOYAR

DILIP RAMCHANDRARAO CHAVAKE

VILAS GULABRAO CHANDURKAR

ANIL GANPATRAO KUNTE

RATNAKAR BALKRUSHNA DAMLE

SUDHIR UDDHAORAO BHONGADE

VIJAYKUMAR MADHAVRAO BADWAIK

GANESH GANPATRAO YELKAR

MILIND RAMAJI RAMTEKE

RAJESH GULABRAO MANDAVGADE

DHANANJAY BABANRAO KADU

CHANDRASHEKHAR GAJANANRAO BHATKULKAR

ANIL VASANTRAO MANEKAR

SUNIL MAHADEORAO DEULKAR

ARUN TUKARAMJI GHUSE

DINESH GOPICHAND MASRAM

PRAKASH VISHWANATH ZALKE

SANJAY CHINTAMAN MUNGHATE

ASHOK RAMCHANDRA SONULE

TEJRAO NARAYANRAO MOHOD

KAWALU MAHADEO TICHKULE

SAHEBRAO BALWANTRAO MORE

NATTHU VASUDEO TAMBE (DEAD), THR. HIS WIDOW SMT. ASHA NATTHU TAMBE

RAJENDRA NATTHUJI FALE (DEAD), THR. HIS WIDOW SMT. SUREKHA RAJENDRA FALE

DHARMENDRA MANIKRAO GAIKWAD (DEAD), THR. WIDOW SMT. VAISHALI DHARMENDRA GAIKWAD

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJ D. WAKODE

14-10-2025
28-04-2026

FOR ADMISSION-SERVICE MATTERS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF TRIBUNALS

23-04-2026

FOR ADMISSION-SERVICE MATTERS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF TRIBUNALS

06-04-2026

FOR ADMISSION-SERVICE MATTERS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF TRIBUNALS

18-02-2026

FOR ADMISSION-SERVICE MATTERS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF TRIBUNALS

Orders

28-04-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJ D. WAKODE

Case Summary: WP/5846/2025 The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) disposed of the State of Maharashtra's writ petition with liberty to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The State argued that crucial issues regarding respondents' entitlement to time-bound promotion and limitation points raised in an additional affidavit were not addressed by the Tribunal. The Court held that when specific points remain undecided by the Tribunal, the proper remedy is to return to the Tribunal for adjudication on those issues rather than seek relief in writ jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/5846/2025 The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) disposed of the State of Maharashtra's writ petition with liberty to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The State argued that crucial issues regarding respondents' entitlement to time-bound promotion and limitation points raised in an additional affidavit were not addressed by the Tribunal. The Court held that when specific points remain undecided by the Tribunal, the proper remedy is to return to the Tribunal for adjudication on those issues rather than seek relief in writ jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case