SATISH MADHUKARRAO WAGH AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:8047-DB
2017.2021WP(2)+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2017 OF 2021
Supriya Parshuram Saynod
Age : 28 years, Occ : Service,
R/o At Post Shimpala, Post Sagroli,
Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.
… PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The Union of India
Through its Additional Secretary,
Ministry for Rural Development,
New Delhi
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Rural Development and Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032
3. Maharashtra Rural Road Development
Association, Through its Empowered
Officer / Chief Engineer,
Maharashtra Rural Roads Development Association
Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept.
(Government of Maharashtra)
th
Bandhkam Bhavan, 7 Floor,
25 Marzban Road,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 001
3-A) Chief Engineer (P.M.G.S.Y.)
Maharashtra Rural Roads Development Association,
New Administrative Building,
Third Floor, In front of Vidhan Bhavan
Camp-Pune
4) Maharashtra Rural Road Development
Superintending Engineer (P.M.G.S.Y.)
Aurangabad Region, Plot No.3,
Block No.107, First Floor,

1/16

2017.2021WP(2)+
Above SBH Branch, Satara Area,
Near Renuka Mata Mandir Gate,
Beed Bye Pass road, Aurangabad – 431 002
5. Executive Engineer
(Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana)
Maharashtra Rural Development Association,
Behind Zilla Parishad Shopping Complex,
Near City Police Station Road,
Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
6. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Railway Station Road,
Osmanabad.
. … RESPONDENTS
WITH/AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 12150 OF 2022
Vasant Babanrao Khemade
Age : 37 years, Occ : Service,
R/o At Post Dhanora Palwan,
Dist. Beed.
… PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Secretary Rural Developments
Ministry Mantralaya, Mumbai
3. The Superintendent of Engineer
Maharashtra Rural Road Development
Association (PMGSY), Aurangabad
Division, Near Renukamata Kaman Mandir
on Top of Me and Mummy Hospital,
Plot No.3, Gat No.109,
Satara Parisar, Beed Bypass, Aurangabad
4. The Executive Engineer,
(Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
Aurangabad), Dist. Aurangabad.

2/16

2017.2021WP(2)+
5. The Nodal Executive Engineer,
(Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna Beed)
Dist. Beed.
6. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Pariahd, Beed.
7. The Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Rural Development,
Government of India,
Krishi Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi - 110 001. … RESPONDENTS
WITH/AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 12247 OF 2022
1. Satish Madhukarrao Wagh
Age : 32 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Jijau Niwas, Sant Namdev Nagar (East),
Danora Road, Dist. Beed.
2. Rajesh Hariram Ghallal
Age : 32 years, Occ : Service,
R/o At Kolharwadi, Po. Ashok Nagar,
Dist. Beed
3. Nilesh Sureshrao Gadekar
Age : 35 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Shahu Nagar,
Dist. Beed.
4. Anand Madhukarrao Waghmode
Age : 31 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Sahyog Nagar,
Dist. Beed.
5. Paras Darebhan Pawar
Age : 32 years, Occ : Service,
R/o At Zapewadi, Po. Warni,
Tq. Shirur (K), Dist. Beed.

3/16

2017.2021WP(2)+
6. Pratik Harishchandra Vidyagar,
Age : 32 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Takshshila Nagar, Dhanora Road,
Dist. Beed.
7. Mahesh Narayanrao Rathod
Age : 32 years, Occ : Service,
R/o B & C Quarter, Kaij,
Dist. Beed.
… PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Secretary Rural Developments
Ministry Mantralaya, Mumbai
3. The Chief Engineer,
Rural Development
Ministry Mantralaya,
(Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna)
Mumbai.
4. The Executive Engineer,
(Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
Aurangabad), Dist. Aurangabad.
5. The Nodal Executive Engineer,
(Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna Beed)
Dist. Beed.
6. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Pariahd, Beed.
7. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Rural Development,
Government of India,
Krishi Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi - 110 001
. … RESPONDENTS

4/16

2017.2021WP(2)+
_______________________________________________________________
• Mr. G.R. Syed, Advocate for petitioner in WP No.2017/2021
• Mr.P.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners in WP
Nos.12150/2022 & 12247/2022
• Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for Respondent/State.
• Mr. R.B. Bagul, Advocate for respondent/UOI.
_______________________________________________________________
…
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKAR AND
VAISHALI PATIL – JADHAV, JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 23, 2026
JUDGMENT [Per Vaishali Patil – Jadhav, J.] :

with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

and posts specifically mentioned in the respective Writ Petitions. The
petitioners have now approached this Court seeking creation of posts
and for permanency benefits with the contention that since the date of
their appointment, they have been continuously working till date,
except for technical breaks given only for the purpose of denying the
benefits of permanency.

5/16

2017.2021WP(2)+

Petition No. 3489/2015, Mahesh S/o. Chandrakant Bhagat and others

issue involved is also same, the petitioners be granted same relief.

does not dispute the factual assertion of the petitioners, that the
petitioners are identically situated as the petitioners in above-noted Writ
Petition No.3489/2015, however, he would submit that the issue
involved in the Writ Petitions need to be referred to the Larger Bench as

law that the Courts do not direct the State to create post as creation of
post is in exclusive domain of the executive or legislative function and
status of permanency cannot be granted by the Court where no such
post exists as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
various matters.

6/16

2017.2021WP(2)+

the status of permanency cannot be granted when there is no

R.S. Bhonde and others, (2005) 6 SCC 751.

others, (2021) 20 SCC 290, the State of Gujrat Vs. R.J. Pathan, 2022
Live Law 313 and Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Thane Vs. Santosh

judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that
merely because the worker had held the post for a long period of time
will not mean that he is entitled to regularization of service. Merely
because an employee is continued for a longer period on contractual
basis, the order of regularization cannot be directed when there is no
sanctioned post. In absence of any sanctioned post, directions for
regularization of service cannot be issued. It is further held that the
High Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226, cannot issue a
writ of mandamus to direct the Department to sanction and create the
posts.

7/16

2017.2021WP(2)+

1 SCC 408, Divisional Manager Vs. Chander Hass and others, (2008) 1
SCC 683 and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs.

held that, the status of permanency cannot be granted by the Court
where no such posts exist and that executive functions and powers with
regard to the creation of posts cannot be arrogated by the courts, also
that, the Court cannot issue any direction to absorb or continue the
employees in service or pay them salaries of regular employees, as these
are purely executive functions. The High Court cannot arrogate to itself
the powers of the executive or legislature. It is well settled that unless
there exists some rule no directions can be issued by the Court for
continuation in service or payment of regular salary to a casual, ad-hoc
or daily rated employee. Such directions are executive functions and it
is not appropriate for the Court to encroach into the functions of
another organ of the State. The Courts must exercise judicial restraint in
this connection.

SCC OnLine SC 3826, Sripal and others Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad,

8/16

2017.2021WP(2)+
2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 and Dharam Singh and others Vs. State of

post and regularize the services of all the petitioners on the posts with
effect from their respective initial dates of joining in service either in
Zilla Parishad or the State Government or in the Society and to give
consequential benefits and arrears of salary. The learned Government

granted if the work is perennial in nature but these judgments do not

State Road Transport Corporation (supra), Chief Executive Officer, Z.P.
Thane (supra), Hari Handan Prasad (supra), Union of India (supra),
which hold that relief of regularization cannot be granted in absence of
sanctioned posts and further that creation of posts is beyond province of
Court of law.

judgment has held that when two judgments of the equal bench
strength are pressed into service and the ratio thereof cannot be

9/16

2017.2021WP(2)+
reconciled, the judgment which is prior in point of time would be a
good law and must be followed as binding precedent. He would
therefore submit that the Court erred in not considering the settled
principle of law held in earlier judgments which are prior in point of
time.

by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

evolved by the Supreme Court from time to time and postulates that all
employees similarly situated should be treated similarly. Large number
of Writ Petitions were listed before the Co-ordinate bench are allowed in

petitions are listed before this Bench. Only because these petitions have
come up for consideration before a different Bench, would not mean
that the persons similarly situated should be treated differently.

and others Vs. Union of India and others in Civil Appeal No.1610/2026
dated 13.02.2026, wherein the casual workers working with the office

10/16

2017.2021WP(2)+
of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior had approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal for regularization of their services,
which was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the
same fate was followed in High Court's decision. Thereafter, they
approached the Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No.1610/2026.
The appellants therein submitted that, services of similarly placed
casual workers from the same department of the Commissioner of
Income Tax were directed to be regularized pursuant to the decisions of

Others in Civil Appeal Nos.2795-2796/2018 and Raman Kumar and

appellants being similarly situated casual workers, should be treated

and deserve the same treatment.

indicate that there can be no directions to the executive to create post
as it is exclusive within its domain, the later judgments of the Supreme

11/16

2017.2021WP(2)+

not to sanction post, the Supreme Court held that the executive decision
is not immune from judicial scrutiny. In the fact situation, the Supreme
Court directed creation of post and accommodate/regularize the
petitioners therein.

a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court should not take a different view
than that taken by the earlier Bench when confronted with the same
issue. The earlier decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is binding upon any
later Co-ordinate Bench deciding the same or similar issue. Here, it will

operative Group Housing Society Ltd., [2010(262) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.)],
wherein it is observed as under :-
"18. A coordinate bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercised
or judgment rendered by another coordinate bench of the same court.
The rule of precedent is binding for the reason that there is a desire to
secure uniformity and certainty in law. Thus, in judicial administration
precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of the
administration of justice under our system. Therefore, it has always been
insisted that the decision of a coordinate bench must be followed. (Vide:
Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel & Ors., AIR

12/16

2017.2021WP(2)+
1968 SC 372; Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India
& Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 97; and State of Tripura v. Tripura Bar Association
& Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 637)."

Adani Power Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, in Civil

24729/2019, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as
under :-

permit such an approach. This Court, in State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Ajay Kumar Sharma MANU/SC/1379/2015 : 2015:INSC:868 :
(2016) 15 SCC 289, has reiterated that once a coordinate Bench
of a High Court has settled a question of law, a subsequent Bench
of equal strength is bound to follow that view when confronted
with the same issue. If the later Bench believes that the earlier
view is so manifestly erroneous or inapplicable that it ought not
to be followed, the later Bench must refer the matter to a larger
Bench for reconsideration. What it cannot do is to sidestep or
whittle down the earlier pronouncement by confining it
artificially or by treating it as a fact-specific indulgence."

13/16

2017.2021WP(2)+
we cannot hold it to be based on erroneous application of law so as to

also a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The
learned Advocate Mr. Deshmukh relied upon the judgment in the
case of Ajay Hasia and Ors. (supra). It is held that when society is
controlled by the State, it can be treated as an instrumentality of
the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In the
present case, it is clearly seen that initially, the appointments
were made by the Zilla Parishad, as at the relevant time, the
implementing machinery was the Zilla Parishad. Though now a
society has been established, it is clearly seen that the scheme is
funded by the Union of India. The society is established, funded
and controlled by the State. The only purpose for which the
society is established is to implement the scheme, which is
extended till 2047. This Court has already held that the work is
of perennial nature. The Government Resolution dated
31/07/2018 also clearly shows that the technical breaks are
given only with the view to see that no right of permanency is
created. Government Resolution itself shows that the work is of
perennial nature and the Government has every apprehension
that if no technical breaks are given benefits of permanency will
have to be given as the work is of perennial nature. The welfare
Government is not expected to adopt such tactics and deny the
benefits of permanency to the employees. Though the petitions
are to be allowed, this Court finds the submissions of learned

14/16

2017.2021WP(2)+
AGP to be correct so far as the payment of the arrears is
concerned. The petitioners are entitled to get the arrears of salary
for the period of three years preceding date of filing of the
petition with bank interest.”

order in the present petitions as petitioners are similarly situated
employees. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order :
(i) The Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The respondent-Authorities are directed to regularize the services of
all the petitioners on their respective posts with effect from their
respective initial dates of joining in service, with consequential benefits.
Arrears of pay to be paid to the petitioners within a period of six months
from today as per Rule.
(iii) The respondent-Authorities to create the posts to absorb the
petitioners either in Zilla Parishad or in the State Government or in the
Society.

period of three years preceding date of filing of the petitions with bank
interest.

15/16

2017.2021WP(2)+

applications, if any, do not survive and the same are also disposed of
accordingly.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKAR, J.]
[VAISHALI PATIL – JADHAV, J.]

16/16