Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. vs Shantaram L. Jadhav And Ors.
2025 Latest Caselaw 3814 Bom

Bombay High Court

Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr. vs Shantaram L. Jadhav And Ors. on 22 August, 2025

2025:BHC-AS:36164
                                                                  3-WP-6265-2006.DOCX


                                                                                             rsk

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO.6265 OF 2006

                    Dr. A. T. Sherekar And Anr.                   ... Petitioners
                               Versus
                    Shantaram L. Jadhav And Ors.              ... Respondents
                    ______________________________________________________
                    Mr. Mulanshu Vora i/b Mr. Arun Patil , for Petitioners.
                    Mr. Piyush Todkar i/b Ms. Neeta Karnik, Senior Advocate, for
                           Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
                    Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP, for Respondent-State.
                    ______________________________________________________

                                               CORAM : Jitendra Jain, J.

DATED : 22 August 2025 PC:-

1. Mr. Vora, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent state that the issue raised in this petition is covered by order of this Court (Coram:

Sandeep V. Marne, J.) in Writ Petition No.4612 of 2006 dated 27 February 2025. Therefore, following the order passed in Writ Petition No.4612/2006, I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:

(i) Judgment and order dated 5 March 2005 passed by the Member Industrial Court, Mumbai is modified to the extent that the Respondent-Workers shall be entitled to be paid difference in the wages

3-WP-6265-2006.DOCX

actually drawn by them and the wages payable to them in the minimum of the payscale extended to regular Class IV employees of the University with effect from 5 March 2005 till the dates of their respective absorption, death, retirement etc.;

(ii) The direction for regularization shall continue in respect of those who are yet to be regularized, who shall be considered for regularization as and when vacancies arise/sanctioned as directed by the Industrial Court.;

iii) The Petitioner-University shall send a proposal to the State Government for sanction of difference in the amount of wages as directed above within 4 weeks and the State Government, shall sanction the same in an expeditious manner, preferably within 8 weeks of receipt of the proposal; and

(iv) The arrears of pay and allowances arising out of the above directions shall be paid to the concerned Respondent-Workers within a period of four months from today.

2. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made partly absolute in the Petition. There shall be no orders as to costs.

3. The petition is disposed of in above terms. However, today there is no appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. If respondent Nos.1 and 2 has any grievance with

3-WP-6265-2006.DOCX

respect to the present order, then liberty is given to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take out appropriate application for recalling of the present order.

4. Mr. Todkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 states that he has already returned the papers and therefore he has no instructions.

(Jitendra Jain, J)