Bombay High Court
Shri Dilip Suresh Shahane vs Thane Municipal Corporation And Ors on 18 August, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:35662
19.IAST.28190.25.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 28190 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3947 OF 2008
Dilip Suresh Shahane .. Applicant
In the matter between:
Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Dilip Suresh Shahane .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Suresh Sabrad a/w. Ms. Gracy Saldnha, Ms. Neha Paute, Mr.
Pratik Sabrad a/w. Ms. Eshwaree Kudalkar, Advocates for Applicant
/ Orig. Respondent.
Mr. Mandar Limaye, Advocate for Orig. Petitioners - Thane
Municipal Corporation.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 18, 2025.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Sabrad, learned Advocate for Applicant / Orig.
Respondent and Mr. Limaye, learned Advocate for Orig. Petitioners -
Thane Municipal Corporation.
2. In the present Interim Application, Applicant is the original
Respondent in Writ Petition No.3947 of 2008 which was dismissed by
this Court by order dated 29.07.2025. Resultantly the order dated
28.01.2008 was upheld and confirmed by this Court. As a result of
which Mr. Sabrad would submit that Applicant (Employee) would be
entitled to backwages. Entitlement of the Applicant has been prayed
1 of 4
19.IAST.28190.25.doc
for by the Applicant in the Interim Application in two parts. Mr. Sabrad
would persuade the Court to pass a direction to the effect that the
amount of backwages which have been deposited in this Court
pursuant to the order dated 24.02.2009 alongwith interest accrued
thereon be allowed to be withdrawn by the Applicant. That prayer
made by Mr. Sabrad ought to have been also allowed while passing the
order dated 29.07.2025. Since it was not pointed out to the Court at
that time the same remained to be allowed. In that view of the matter,
Applicant - Original Respondent is entitled to grant of prayer clause 'b'
in the Interim Application.
3. In so far as prayer clause 'c' is concerned, Mr. Sabrad would
submit that undoubtedly in view of dismissal of the Writ Petition filed
by the Corporation, Applicant would be entitled to backwages from
24.02.2009 to 30.04.2022 alongwith all consequential benefits. Upto
this point, Mr. Sabrad is right, if the order dated 29.07.2025 passed in
Writ Petition No.3947 of 2008 is required to be implemented.
However, Applicant has also prayed for 8% interest thereon which is
not the subject matter of the judgment and order dated 28.01.2008
neither the said amount of interest can be granted over and above the
entitlement of backwages to the Applicant as granted by the Labour
Court and upheld by this Court.
2 of 4
19.IAST.28190.25.doc
4. In that view of the matter, in so far as prayer clause 'c' is
concerned, to the extent of Applicant entitled to backwages from
24.02.2009 upto 30.04.2022 alongwith all consequential benefits
thereon can be granted by this Court by making a specific direction to
the Corporation. The reasons which impel me to allow prayer clause 'c'
upto the above extent is that the Applicant before me now cannot face
the ignominy of Execution proceedings and be made to run from pillar
to post. It is seen that the Supreme Court in the opening remark in its
judgment dated 30.10.2023 in the case of Pradeep Mehra Vs. Harijivan
J. Jethwa (since deceased thr. lrs.) and Ors. 1 has observed as follows
in paragraph No.1:-
"1. This appeal before us shows how the execution proceedings
under order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), are being delayed, and the
process is being abused in the execution proceedings, to the peril
of the helpless decree holder.
As long back as in 1872 (when the CPC of 1859 was in
operation), it was observed by the Privy Council that, "the
difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a
decree"2. The situation, we are afraid, is no better even today."
5. I dare say, the situation is no better even after 154 years
after the aforesaid judgment of the Privy Council delivered in 1872 and
if the observations made therein are considered.
6. If this Court has passed the order dated 29.07.2025, it is also
in the interest of justice that the said judgment is seen to be delivered
1 2023 INSC 958
2 Raj Durbhunga Vs. Maharajha Coomar Ramaput Sing, 1872 SCC Online PC 16 : (1871-72) 14 Moo IA 605 at
page 612
3 of 4
19.IAST.28190.25.doc
rather than it remains as a paper tiger and the decree holder is driven
to execution proceedings for the rest of his life.
7. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to accept the
submissions made Mr. Sabrad and direct the Respondents -
Corporation in the present Interim Application to pay to the Applicant
the entire backwages from 24.02.2009 to 30.04.2022 alongwith all
consequential benefits within a period of two weeks from today
positively.
8. The computation of the said backwages alongwith all
consequential benefits shall be prepared by Mr. Sabrad and informed
to the Corporation within the next two days. The Corporation shall
confirm the calculation and computation and if there is any
discrepancy, inform the same to Mr. Sabrad immediately and if the
same is correct, then pay the same as per this order without recourse
to any Court.
9. Interim Application is allowed and disposed in the above
terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.08.18
18:33:42 +0530
4 of 4
