Bombay High Court
Yogesh Motilal Oswal And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 29 July, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AUG:19965-DB
1119.WP.12668.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12668 OF 2021
Yogesh Motilal Oswal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
***
Mr. Barlinge S. R., for Petitioners.
Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
***
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 29th JULY 2025.
P. C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
AGP for the respondent - State.
2. It is not disputed that the petitioners herein are identically
situated to individuals, who had approached this Court at the Principal
Seat as well as before this Bench in Writ Petition Nos.1561 of 2024 and
7537 2025.
3. In fact, Writ Petition No.7537 of 2025 was disposed of
recently on 30th June 2025, by relying upon earlier orders passed by
this Court in case of similarly situated persons.
4. The relevant portion of the order dated 30 th June 2025,
1119.WP.12668.2021.doc
passed in Writ Petition No.7537 of 2025 (Ramesh s/o Jangannath Patil
Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.), reads as follows :
"8. In view of the above, we are more than convinced
that the case of the petitioner is completely covered
by the aforementioned judgment and orders passed
by various benches of this Court and which stood
confirmed upto the Supreme Court. In such a
situation, the observations made in the aforesaid
recent judgment and order passed at the Principal
Seat of this Court on 05.02.2025 in Writ Petition
No.1561 of 2024 are relevant and they read as
follows:
"6. The Petitioners are entitled for the
benefits of the Government Resolution dated
27th February, 2006 in view of the Judgment
dated 4th July, 2014 delivered in Writ Petition
No.243 of 2007, at Aurangabad Bench and
the order dated 19th April, 2017 vide which,
the Review Petition No.119 of 2016 was
rejected.
7. The learned Advocate for the
Petitioners submits that for the last 11 years,
this Court has been repeatedly passing such
orders. Despite series of such orders and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court having repeatedly
dismissed the SLPs, the Government is still
not following the Government Resolution and
1119.WP.12668.2021.doc
compelling the litigants to approach this
Court and indulge in litigation, perforce. He
submits that even earlier, the Court had
granted interest. The learned AGP submits
that interest may not be granted.
8. We are of the view that the
concerned Department of the State
Government should have actually issued a
circular bringing to the notice of all
concerned, the fact of this Court having
delivered orders in the last 11 years and the
SLPs filed by the State of Maharashtra having
been repeatedly rejected. The circular should
have had the semblance of a direction for
specific implementation of the Government
Resolution dated 27th February, 2006.
9. Even after 11 years of the orders
passed by this Court, the Petitioners are
compelled to approach this Court by filing
Petitions, which is purely a compulsion. Such
unnecessary litigation could have been
avoided. It is in these circumstances that we
are granting interest on the arrears to be paid
to the Petitioners at the rate of 6% p.a. from
the date of the filing of the Petitions.
10. This Writ Petition is allowed, in
terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B). The
1119.WP.12668.2021.doc
arrears shall be calculated along with the
interest component and the same shall be
paid to these Petitioners within 60 days from
today.
11. We also observe that if in future
similar matters come up before this Court
praying for a similar relief, the interest
component would be increased and it would
be made applicable from the date of the
Government Resolution dated, 27th February,
2006."
9. In this situation, we are of the opinion that the
petitioner has made out a case for allowing the writ
petition on similar lines. Accordingly, writ petition is
allowed in terms of prayer clause (B), which reads as
follows:
(B) By a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order or directions
in the like nature, the respondents may
kindly be directed to pay the arrears of
difference and wages as per the pay
scale of Rs.4000-6000/- and grade pay
of Rs.4200/- along with interest @
Rs.6% p.a. to the petitioner within a
period of six weeks.
10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
11. It is made clear that the component of interest would
1119.WP.12668.2021.doc
be paid from the date of filing of the petition i.e.
09.06.2025. It is further made clear that if the
petitioner has already received any amount towards
such pay scale, the same would be taken into
account.
12. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of."
5. Since there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners
herein are also identically situated, this writ petition is allowed in
terms of the prayer clauses (a) and (b). Since this Court granted 6%
interest on the arrears of difference of wages to identically situated
persons, it is further directed that even in the case of petitioners
herein, the amount found payable to them, shall be paid along with
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 17 th
November 2021.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Signed by: Shrikant Malani
Designation: PA to Hon'ble Judge
Date: 30/07/2025 10:48:26
