Shantabai Fulchand Shende And Others v. State Of Maha., Thr. Dept. Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Mumbai And ORS
2026:BHC-NAG:4797-DB 904 wp 2456-2026.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2456 OF 2026 1.
Shantabai Fulchand Shende, Aged about 81 yrs, occupation Pensioner, Kewalram Goma Donode aged about 79 years, occupation Bhagwan Mahadeo Mate aged about 86 yrs, occupation Pensioner 4.
Divakar Watuji Gayadhane aged about 85 yrs, occupation Pensioner 5.
Sumitra Diwakar Gayadhane aged about 80 yrs, occupation Pensioner.
6.
Chintaman Mangruji Kapgate aged about 64 yrs, occupation Pensioner 7.
Vithal Tulsiram Bhoyar aged about 611 yrs, occupation Udaram Bhagwan Pakhmode aged about 74 yrs, occupation
904 wp 2456-2026.odt 2/6 9.
Jaiprakash Dudhram Temburne aged 61 yrs, occupation Pensioner 10.
Nalini Manikrao Nikhade aged 72 yrs, occupation Pensioner 11.
Namdeo Bhajiram Pakhmode aged about 61 yrs, Occupation pensioner 12.
Vandana alias Prabha Shriram Giripunje aged about 77 yrs, occupation pensioner 13.
Sudhir Govinda Wanmali aged about 62 yrs, occupation Pensioner 14.
Dnyaneshwar Laxman Bhivgade aged about 63 yrs, 15.
Vidhayak Vinayak Gade aged about 64 yrs, occupation 16.
Chandrasekhar Govinda Girhepunje aged about 62 yrs, 17.
Kewalram Nago Kapse aged about 85 yrs, occupation 18.
Ramchandra Kashiram Kore aged 85 yrs occupation Pensioner 19.
Kamal Shriram Rotkar, aged about 79 yrs, occupation
904 wp 2456-2026.odt 3/6 pensioner.
20.
Vijaya Wasudeo Khandait aged 81 yrs, occupation 21.
Narayan Sakru Kadukar Through P/A Pushapraj Narayan Kadukar aged 79 yrs 22.
Manoj Kumar Kewalram Halmare aged about 51 yrs, 23.
Dayaram Shrawan Aakare aged about 70, occupation 24.
Ramkrishna Patiram Girhepunje, aged 62 yrs, occupation Pensioner.
Dindayal Baburao Zalke aged 81 yrs, occupation 26.
Pushaplata Vashist Rahangdale aged 52 yrs 27.
Bhaiyyalal Ramchandra Chauhan, aged 73 yrs, 28.
Narayan Bhakru Ukey, aged 72 yrs occupation pensioner 29.
Manjusha Tulsiram Lanjewar Aged 60 yrs
904 wp 2456-2026.odt 4/6 30.
Pramila Bhojram Sarve, aged 65 yrs occupation 31.
Lata Premlal Bodole, aged 69 years occupation pensioner 32.
Bhaskar Ganpatrao Tiwade aged 70 yrs occupation 33.
Nathu Mangalji Dhargave aged 79 yrs occupation 34.
Bhimraj Warlu Waghdeve aged 78 yrs occupation pensioner, All Petitioners 1 to 34, R/o C/o Ishwardas Dhenge, Kesalwada, Tahsil Lakhani, District Bhandara ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Department of Rural Development, & Panchayat Raj, Mantralaya, Mumbai The District Collector, Bhandara, Civil Lines, Bhandara The Tahsildar, Tahsil Bhandara, Bhandara
904 wp 2456-2026.odt 5/6 4.
The Zilla Parishad, through Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Civil Lines Bhandara ...RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.G. Karmarkar Advocate for petitioners Ms H.N. Jaipurkar, AGP for respondent/State --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
:
SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE :
25.03 .2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER :
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
) Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
The petition prays for directing the respondent No.1 Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, to make payment of gratuity with interest as ordered by the Judge of the Labour Court/Controlling Authority, Bhandara.
4.
The petitioners, who are the retired employees of the Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, approached the Labour Court/Controlling Authority by filing an application under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for the determination and payment of the
904 wp 2456-2026.odt 6/6 gratuity to them. The matter was heard by the Labour Court/Controlling Authority, and it issued a notice in Form R, under Rule 17 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and directed the respondent Zilla Parishad to pay the amount of gratuity to the petitioners. It is the contention of the petitioners that, however, despite service of the said notice, the amount of gratuity, along with interest has not been paid.
5.
We have heard Shri Karmarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, who fairly admits that Rule 8 comes into play if payment of gratuity is not made as is in the present situation. 6.
We therefore dispose of the present petition with liberty to the present petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy, and more particularly, under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and all other relevant provisions in that regard. Needless to mention that we have not made any comment on the merits of the matter. 7.
The petition is disposed of.
8.
Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Jayashree..