Babasaheb Gangadhar Phulare And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:32522-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 912 WRIT PETITION NO. 11540 OF 2025 BABASAHEB GANGADHAR PHULARE AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS Mr. J. M. Murkute, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE : 26th NOVEMBER, 2025 P. C. :- 1.

This Writ Petition has been filed mainly for issuing direction to Respondent No.2- the Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State, Pune to decide the representation of the Petitioners dated 22nd July, 2024 in respect of unpaid salary of the Petitioners.

2.

It is contended by the Petitioners that they were permanent employees of Respondent No.5- Sugar Factory. Some of the Petitioners have not been paid their salaries from 1st April, 2003 till date. It is then pleaded that the Board of Directors of

Respondent No.4- Sugar Factory had passed a Resolution in a meeting dated 1st May, 2012 regarding payment of wages to the Petitioners. Audit report of the Sugar Factory also shows that there is entry regarding payment of wages to the extent of Rs.19,68,927/-. When still there was unpaid salary, the Petitioners had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1622 of 2023. The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank had then filed the reply stating that the property of the Sugar Factory has been sold and under the said circumstance, the Petitioners wish to proceed against the purchaser. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed of on 6th April, 2018. Thereafter, the information has been gathered by the Petitioners that the Sugar Factory has been purchased by Respondent No.6 and even there is terms and statement regarding payment of unpaid salary of the employees. Therefore, a representation has been made by the Petitioners to Respondent No.2.

3.

Learned AGP waives notice for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and

4. No necessity to issue notice to Respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6 taking into consideration the prayer clause. Upon oral instructions from Respondent Nos.2 and 4, learned AGP makes a statement

that the said representation would be decided within a period of four weeks from today. We, therefore, dispose of the Writ Petition by directing Respondent Nos.2 and 4 to decide the said representation within a period of four weeks from today. [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] [HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] JUDGE JUDGE ssp