Vinayak Babu Pradhan And ORS. v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary The Dept. Of Rural And Water Conservation And ORS.

910 to 913 WP 804, 805, 807 &1078.26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.804 OF 2026 Vinayak Babu Pradhan and others .. Petitioners ..Versus..

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. Datta H. Pawar, Advocate a/w Adv. Eshan Nayak, for Petitioners. Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State. Mr. Kedar Lad, Advocate a/w Adv. Indrayani Patil, Poonam Dhotre for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

by ABHIMANYU SHANKARRAO GULANDE Date:

2026.03.25 10:32:43 +0530 ABHIMANYU SHANKARRAO GULANDE WRIT PETITION NO.805 OF 2026 Tatoba Balu Bhise and others .. Petitioners ..Versus..

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. Datta H. Pawar, Advocate a/w Adv. Eshan Nayak, for Petitioners. Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State. Mr. R.P. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. WRIT PETITION NO.807 OF 2026 Satappa Vishnu Patil and others .. Petitioners ..Versus..

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. Datta H. Pawar, Advocate a/w Adv. Eshan Nayak, for Petitioners. Mr. A.A. Naik, AGP for Respondent-State.

Mr. Kedar Lad, Advocate a/w Adv. Indrayani Patil, Poonam Dhotre for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

WRIT PETITION NO.1078 OF 2026 Sachin Sursing Kharade and others .. Petitioners ..Versus..

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. Datta H. Pawar, Advocate a/w Adv. Eshan Nayak, for Petitioners. Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State. Mr. Kedar Lad, Advocate a/w Adv. Indrayani Patil, Poonam Dhotre for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

...........

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : MARCH 24, 2026.

P.C.

910 to 913 WP 804, 805, 807 &1078.26.odt 1.

The petitioners have moved the praecipe for speaking to minutes and pointed out in para 3 that there is a typographical mistake in the order dated 18.3.2026.

2.

Considering the entire contention of the petitioners, it is clear that there is a typographical mistake. Hence, in para 3 of the order, the words "they are entitled to get revise their pension" be replaced as the words "to get beneits of additional increment in salary". 3.

Accordingly, order dated 18.3.2026 be corrected accordingly and correct order be uploaded.

(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) Gulande