Laxman Devrao Babar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-KOL:4241-DB
18-WP-4546-2015 (C)-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4546 OF 2015
Laxman Devrao Babar,
Since Deceased Through LRs.
1. Suman Laxman Babar, Age 60,
2. Rajshekhar Laxman Babar, Age 42,
3. Sachin Laxman Babar, Age 36,
4. Rahul Laxman Babar, Age 33,
All R/o. Wani Plot, Adalgaon Road,
Barshi, District Solapur. .....Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
(Development), Pune Division,
Pune.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Solapur. .....Respondents
.....
Mr. Sanjay D. Thokade with Mr. Umakant Waghmare, Advocate for
Petitioners.
Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State.
Mr. Satish B. Talekar with Mr. Anand Kulkarni, Advocate for
Respondents No. 3.
.....
CORAM: MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI,
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
th
DATED: 15 JUNE 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per Sandesh D. Patil, J.)
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of parties.
Gaikwad RD
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 18:59:38 :::
18-WP-4546-2015 (C)-J.doc
th
2. The Petition is directed against the orders dated 16 September
2011 issued by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
th
Solapur and the order/letter dated 15 December 2014 issued by the
Division Commissioner (Development), Pune Division, Pune. The
case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner joined the service of the
Zilla Parishad, Solapur as ‘Junior Assistant’ in the year 1970. There
were certain enquiry proceedings initiated against the Petitioner and
th
ultimately on 12 February 1988, the services were terminated. The
Petitioner challenged his termination by filing Complaint (ULP)
th
No.32 of 1988 before the Labour Court, Solapur. On 4 May 1998,
the Complaint (ULP) No.32 of 1988 filed before the Labour Court,
Solapur by the Petitioner was allowed and the Petitioner was directed
to be reinstated with full back-wages. The Zilla Parishad, Solapur-
Respondent No.3 filed a Revision (ULP) No.32 of 1988 before the
Industrial Court, which was dismissed by a reasoned order. The
Respondent No.3, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.2220 of 2004
before the Bombay High Court. Pending the hearing of the said Writ
th
Petition, the Petitioner retired from his service on 30 April 2007. It
is contended by the Petitioner that the Respondent No.3 asked the
Petitioner to execute a bond, accordingly, a bond was executed by the
Gaikwad RD
2/7
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 18:59:38 :::
18-WP-4546-2015 (C)-J.doc
Petitioner, which is at record page No.12 of the Writ Petition. The
Clause Nos.3 and 4 of the bond state that the Petitioner would not
claim back-wages during the period till which his services are
reinstated. The Petitioner also agreed that he would be governed by
any decision which would be taken by Zilla Parishad regarding the
reinstatement in service. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2220 of
2004, i.e., Respondent No.3-Zilla Parishad did not press for petition
in light of the bond and accordingly, the Petition was disposed of. It
is pertinent to note at this juncture that the Judgment and Order
th
dated 4 May 1998 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP)
No.32 of 1988, thus, attained finality.
th
3. The Petitioner was, in fact, reinstated and vide order dated 9
February 2009, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur
passed an order thereby reinstating the Petitioner in service. Vide a
th
letter dated 30 March 2009, it was clarified by the CEO, Zilla
th th
Parishad, Solapur that the period of 13 February 1988 to 18 May
2004 by which he was taken up service would be counted as
‘Continued Services’. Thereafter, the Petitioner prayed for pensionary
benefits. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the learned
Gaikwad RD
3/7
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 18:59:38 :::
18-WP-4546-2015 (C)-J.doc
counsel Mr. Sanjay Thokade appearing for the Petitioner states, on
instructions, that the Petitioner is not claiming any back-wages and is
restricting his claim only for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Vide
th
order dated 15 December 2014, the Commissioner, Pune Division,
Pune had rejected the application of the Petitioner for pensionary
benefits.
4. Mr. Thokade, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that
th
the bond, which was executed by him on 11 May 2004 would not
amount to deprive the Petitioner of the pensionary benefits. He
th
submits that once the order dated 30 March 2009 was passed by the
CEO, Zilla Parishad, Solapur and which is not challenged by the
Respondent No.3, he would be entitled for the pensionary benefits.
5. Mr. Talekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Zilla
Parishad, Solapur has contended that there cannot be estoppel
against law. He relied on Rule 44 of the Maharashtra Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1982 (‘the Pension Rules’). He stated that Sub-Rule
(2) of Rule 44 of the Pension Rules only provides for counting of past
service on reinstatement. He laid more emphasis on Rule 48 of the
Pension Rules and contended that as per Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 48 of
Gaikwad RD
4/7
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 18:59:38 :::
18-WP-4546-2015 (C)-J.doc
the Pension Rules assuming the interruption is condoned, it shall not
count as ‘Qualifying Services’. He submitted that the Petitioner has
th th
not worked from 13 February 1988 to 18 May 2004 and is not
entitled for the pensionary benefits. It is the contention of Mr.
Talekar that the bond was not filed at the instance of Respondent
No.3, but it was filed by the Petitioner voluntarily.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
th
we are of the considered view that the Judgment and Order dated 4
May 1998 passed by the learned Labour Court, Solapur, whereby the
Petitioner was directed to be reinstated with full back-wages is not
set aside, modified or reversed by any subsequent order. We are,
therefore, of the confirmed opinion that said Judgment and Order
would hold the field. It is settled position of law that any order till it
is modified, reversed or set aside by a Competent Court is binding.
We are fortifying our contention by the Judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla v. Hargovind
1
Jaisraj & Anr. The Judgment and Order passed by the Labour Court
is not set aside by any Competent Court. The decision in Writ
Petition No.2220 of 2004 is that the Court has disposed of the Writ
1 2013 (3) SCC 182.
Gaikwad RD
5/7
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 18:59:38 :::
18-WP-4546-2015 (C)-J.doc
Petition. This Court has not set aside the order passed by the Labour
Court. It was the duty of the Respondent No.3 to get the said order
set aside and/or get the authoritative pronouncement. Failure to do
so would not act in benefit of the Zilla Parishad. Once the order is
th
passed on 30 March 2009, whereby it is held that the period from
th th
13 February 1988 to 18 May 2004 shall be held for the purpose of
‘Continuity in Service’, there remains no merit in the submission of
learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 that this period should be
counted only for the purpose of ‘Qualifying Service’ and not for the
purpose of pensionary benefits. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner as
on today vide a judicial pronouncement of the Labour Court is
entitled for the pensionary benefits as well as the back-wages.
However, Mr. Thokade, the learned counsel for the petitioner has, on
instructions, stated that he is not claiming the back-wages at all. The
contention of Mr. Talekar that Rule 48 of the Pension Rules is
applicable is totally uncalled for. In fact, even in the impugned
orders it is clearly mentioned that they are passed under Rule 44(2)
of the Pension Rules. As such, the Petitioner was unduly deprived of
the benefits for such a long period. We, therefore, allow the petition
and pass the following order.
Gaikwad RD
6/7
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 18:59:38 :::
18-WP-4546-2015 (C)-J.doc
ORDER
th
i) The Order/letter dated 16 September 2011 issued by the
Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur and
th
the order/letter dated 15 December 2014 issued by the
Division Commissioner (Development), Pune Division, Pune
are hereby quashed and set aside, as we held that the
Petitioner is entitled for the pension while treating the
th th
pension period from 13 February 1988 to 18 May 2004.
ii) With this, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
iii) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
7. Mr. Talekar, at this juncture, prays for stay of this order.
However, since we have passed a detailed reasoned order, we refused
to grant stay to this order.
8. Before departing we hereby mention that there was an order
th
dated 5 May 2026 passed by this Court making certain observations
against the then Panel Advocate of the Zilla Parishad-Respondent
No.3. We are satisfied with the explanation given by the learned
Advocate and, hence, we do not propose to take any further steps
regarding the same.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
Gaikwad RD
7/7
Digitally
signed by
RAJU
DATTATRAYA
GAIKWAD
Date:
2026.06.17
18:39:25
+0530
RAJU
DATTATRAYA
GAIKWAD
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2026 18:59:38 :::