Shyam S/O Raheman Bhaskar And Another v. The State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Tribal Development Dept., Mumbai And ORS.
2025:BHC-NAG:12802-DB 1 901 to 916) WP 4581-25++.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4581 OF 2025 RITA D/O UTTAMRAO JAWANJAL ...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3322 OF 2025 VAISHALI W/O VILAS BAMBAL AND OTHERS ...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3453 OF 2025 SURAJ S/O. MADHUKARRAO BADHEKAR AND ANOTHER ...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3778 OF 2025 SANJAY RATAN HEKADE ...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3913 OF 2025 KASHIRAM S/O RUPAL DHURVE AND OTHERS ...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4056 OF 2025 CHIRONJEELAL S/O SAKHARAM MAVASKAR AND OTHERS ...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4307 OF 2025 ARCHANA D/O RAMDEV JAWARKAR AND ANOTHER ...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4526 OF 2025 RAVI S/O SABULAL JAMUNKAR ...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4925 OF 2025 PRAMILA D/O HARICHAND DARSIMBE AND OTHERS ...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5433 OF 2025 RAMSINGH S/O MANANG SAWALKAR AND OTHERS ...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS.
2 901 to 916) WP 4581-25++.odt AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5501 OF 2025 SHANKAR NAMDEV PATIL AND OTHERS ...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6218 OF 2025 DAMYANTI W/O JAGGULAL MAWASKAR AND ORS.
...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6247 OF 2025 SHYAM S/O RAHEMAN BHASKAR AND ANOTHER ...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6418 OF 2025 GEETA W/O RAMPRASAD DAHIKAR AND OTHERS ...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 7165 OF 2025 PANKAJ S/O RAJU BHASHKARE ...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 7166 OF 2025 JAGDEV S/O DESHIRAM IWANE ...Vs...
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri S.I.Ghatte, Advocate for petitioner(s).
S/Shri/Smt. N.R. Patil, D.P.Thakare, N.S.Rao, S.M.Ukey, H.D.Marathe and P.P. Pendke, AGP for respondent/State in respective petitions. CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.
DATED : 20th NOVEMBER, 2025.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2.
The details of petitioner/s who claim/s to have worked, are as under:-
3 901 to 916) WP 4581-25++.odt Sr.
No.
Writ Petition Petitioner(s) Worked as/Post Nos.
4581/2025 Petitioner Teacher in the Ashram School 3322/2025 Petitioner Teachers in the Govt.
Ashram Schools 3453/2025 Petitioners Peon 3778/2025 Petitioner Sanitation Worker 3913/2025 Petitioners Class-IV Employees 4056/2025 Petitioners Class-IV Employees 4307/2025 Petitioners Adhikshika/Supervisor/ Teachers 4526/2025 Petitioner Teacher 4925/2025 Petitioners Teacher/Cook/Peon 10 5433/2025 Petitioner no. 1 Peon Petitioner nos.
2, 3 and 4 Cook/Watchman/ Cook/Sweeper, 11 5501/2025 Petitioner no. 1 Teacher Petitioner no. 2 Cook/Watchman, Petitioner no. 3 Sharda Girls care taker Petitioner no. 4 Sushila Girls care taker petitioner no. 5 Nandu Pawar Cook 12 6218/2025 Petitioners Sweeper, Watchman, Watchman, Watchman and Peon respectively 13 6247/2025 Petitioner no. 1 Teacher Petitioner no. 2 Cook/Watchman, 14 6418/2025 Petitioner nos.
1, 2 and 3 Cook Petitioner no. 4 Sweeper 15 7165/2025 Petitioner Watchman 16 7166/2025 Petitioner Watchman
4 901 to 916) WP 4581-25++.odt 3.
In all these petitions, a prayer is made to quash and set aside the Government Resolution (GR) dated 21/05/2025 whereby respondent no. 1 had proposed to fill the ad-hoc posts by outsourcing agencies. Further, consequent prayers regarding regularization and payment of minimum wages were also made. 4.
The issue involved regarding the regularization and permanency has been answered succinctly by this Court at Aurangabad Bench in the judgment dated 19/09/2025 in Writ Petition No. 11349/2025 (Nitin Baliram Gharat and Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and ors.) and other connected petitions. In which, this Court has dealt with judicial developments and policy taken by the State in detailed. The following observations would be relevant for deciding the controversy:- "12. All such Petitioners, who have not completed 10 years in service, either in the teaching or non-teaching category, would not stand protected. Nevertheless, they would be entitled, along with all others, for parity in wages in the light of order of this Court passed in Interim Application No. 1418 of 2024 in Writ Petition No. 13177 of 2023, on 29th November 2024 (Sandip Ganpat Hadbal & Ors. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)."
5.
In the aforesaid background, the same analogy is adopted here and the present petitions are disposed of as per directions given in para 10 to 14 in the case of Nitin Baliram Gharat (supra), which are reproduced as under:- "10. In view of the above, we observe that though, on the one hand, the State Government would carry out a verification exercise as is directed in Madhukar Bhagwanrao Sadgir (supra) and Pandurang Hari Shelke (supra), those teachers who do not have the TET qualification, would not be terminated and
5 901 to 916) WP 4581-25++.odt would be continued in employment for a further period of 2 years with effect from 1" September, 2025 until 1TM September 2027, to enable them to acquire the TET qualification, failing which, their contractual service would be brought to an end from 2nd September 2027.
11. Needless to state, those who acquire the STET or CTET qualification within such period, would then be granted regularization as 'Assistant Teachers' depending on the availability of the permanent vacant posts. If the posts have exhausted, they would be continued until further vacancies arise and would be absorbed in a staggered manner.
12. All such Petitioners, who have not completed 10 years in service, either in the teaching or nonteaching category, would not stand protected. Nevertheless, they would be entitled, along with all others, for parity in wages in the light of order of this Court passed in Interim Application No. 1418 of 2024 in Writ Petition No. 13177 of 2023, on 29th November 2024 (Sandip Ganpat Hadbal & Ors. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.).
13. As is held in paragraph no. 12 in Madhukar Bhagwanrao Sadgir (supra), the concerned department has to verify as to which of the Petitioners have completed 10 years of service as Teachers, were interviewed prior to their appointment and were found qualified and
6 901 to 916) WP 4581-25++.odt appointed. If this aspect is not found, then a reasoned order has to be passed while rejecting the claim.
14. Insofar as those Petitioners, who have completed 10 years in service on contractual basis and do not fall in the Teachers' Category (Non-teaching Staff), they would be considered depending on the availability of permanent vacant posts, in the light of the guidelines set out in Madhukar Bhagwanrao Sadgir (supra) and Pandurang Hari Shelke (supra) and the policy of State Government. If any of the Petitioners is found to be ineligible for whatever reason, as was held in Pandurang Hari Shelke (supra), the Government would pass a reasoned order and the said order would be served upon the concerned Petitioner, who would then be at liberty to assail the said decision before the appropriate forum."
6.
In the aforesaid background, respondent is directed to act in terms of para 5 of this order and as passed in the case of Nitin Baliram Gharat (supra). Needless to mention that we expect that the concerned authorities to complete the said exercise within a period of 180 days.
(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) B.T.K.