Bombay High Court
Yogesh So Chhagan Vasave vs Shri Vijay Waghmare on 10 October, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Digitally
2025:BHC-AS:44774-DB
signed by
GAURI AMIT
GAURI GAEKWAD
951 to 954.CP-572-2025.odt
AMIT Date:
GAEKWAD 2025.10.15
10:45:20
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(951) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.572 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.9460 OF 2023
Mangala Bhaidas Pawara and Anr. ....Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Waghmare and Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
(952) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.574 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.9463 OF 2023
Chaitram s/o. Nevajya Pawara & Ors. ....Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Waghmare and Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
(953) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.575 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.9457 OF 2023
Dharmendrasing s/o. Vijaysing
Parmar & Ors. ....Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Waghmare and Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
(954) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.576 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.9465 OF 2023
Dipali Pandurang Marathe & Ors. ....Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Waghmare and Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
(518) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.573 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.12249 OF 2023
Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2025 23:36:47 :::
951 to 954.CP-572-2025.odt
Yogesh s/o. Chhagan Vasave & Ors. ....Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Waghmare and Ors. ....Respondents
----
Mr. Satish Talekar a/w. Mr. Yogesh Morey, Mr. Satyajeet Salve and
Mr. Vidyasagar Bhave i/b. Talekar and Associates for the Petitioners
in all Petitions.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w. Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for the
Respondent - State in CP/572/2025.
Ms. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for the Respondent - State in
CP/574/2025.
Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for the Respondent - State in
CP/575/2025.
Mrs. N.M. Mehra, AGP for the Respondent - State in CP/576/2025.
Ms. Diksha Patil, Law Officer, Tribal Development Department and
Mr. Ajay Sakhare, Desk Officer, Tribal Development Department
present.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 10th OCTOBER, 2025
P.C. :-
1. Contempt Petition No.573 of 2025, was not on board.
By consent of the parties, taken on the production board.
2. The learned Addl. GP has tendered a ready reference
chart (3 pages) along with a compilation of documents, many of
which are not legible (150 pages). The ready reference chart and the
compilation are taken on record together and collectively marked as
'X'.
Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 6
951 to 954.CP-572-2025.odt
3. According to the learned Addl. GP, the Commissioner,
Tribal Development, is trying his best to collate information.
Voluminous records have to be seen. Cases of all those Petitioners
and similarly placed employees, who may not have approached this
Court, but have completed 10 years in employment, are being
considered. They may be entitled to take the benefit of the judgment
of this Court delivered in Madhukar s/o. Bhavanrao Sadgir and Ors.
v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1 which is the reason why more
time beyond the expected duration for completing the process and
complying with the orders of this Court dated 14th November, 2024
and 30th January, 2025, is required. He submits, on definite
instructions, from Ms. Diksha Patil, Law Officer, Tribal
Development Department, that within a period of 90 days, this
process would be concluded.
4. The learned Advocate representing the Petitioners
points out a Government Resolution dated 4th August, 2025 vide
which the State Government is planning to float Tenders for filling
in 1791 posts of Ashram School Teachers under the Adivasi
Development Division of the State Government, through outsourced
Agencies. He, therefore, submits that the Authorities have actually
spent time on formulating a Scheme to bypass the order of this
1 2019 (2) Mh.L.J. 119
Gauri Gaekwad 3 of 6
951 to 954.CP-572-2025.odt
Court and the verdict in Madhukar s/o. Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra).
The time to be utilised for implementing the order of this Court is
spent for other reasons.
5. He then points out a recent judgment delivered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22nd August, 2025 in SLP (C) No.1347
of 2024 (Sham Samir Bharatbhai and Ors. v/s. The State of Gujarat
and Ors.) and connected matters, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has recorded in paragraph nos. 32 to 34, as under :
32. Learned counsels for the appellants have
given us a comparative chart drawing out the
distinction between the regular Assistant
Professors, ad hoc appointee and contractual
appointee, like that of the respondents :
SN Assistant Minimum Recruitment Nature of 2012 Gross 2025 gross
Professor Educational Duties salary (per salary (per
Category Qualification month) month)
1. Contractual M. Tech. Through Identical Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
(Petitioners Public Duties
herein) Advertisement (Teaching
against Engineering
2. Ad-Hoc B. Tech. Rs.34,000/- Rs.1,16,000/-
sanctioned Students in
(Post-2008) (approx.) (approx.)
post Government
Engineering
3. Regular M. Tech. Colleges of Rs.40,412/- Rs.1,36,952/-
(Post-2008) the (approx.) (approx.)
State of
Gujarat and
occasional
administrative
work.)
33. It is disturbing that Assistant Professors are
getting monthly emoluments of Rs. 30,000/-. It is
high time that the State takes up the issue and
rationalize the pay structure on the basis of
functions that they perform. For the present we
Gauri Gaekwad 4 of 6
951 to 954.CP-572-2025.odt
have followed the decisions of the Gujarat High
Court in Acharya Madhavi (supra) and Gohel
Vishal Chhaganbhai (supra) to grant appellants
the same relief as in those cases. We leave it open
to the appellants and such similarly placed
Assistant Professors to work out their remedies
before the High Court in view of their continued
service for a long period. It is for the High Court
to consider the same and pass orders as per law.
34. For the reasons stated above, we allow the
appeals and set aside the judgment and order of
the High Court passed by the Division Bench in
LPA No. 1371 of 2023 dated 20.12.2023 as well
as by the single Judge in R/Special Civil
Application No. 11567 of 2018 dated 05.07.2023.
Allowing the appeals in part, we direct that the
contractually appointed Assistant Professors, shall
be entitled to the minimum pay scale admissible
to Assistant Professors. Arrears calculated at the
rate of 8% shall be paid from three years
preceding the date of filing of the writ petitions.
With these directions the appeals stand allowed.
6. We reiterate that the orders of this Court dated
14th November, 2024 and 30th January, 2025 and the view taken in
Madhukar s/o. Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra) cannot be bypassed. Those
Petitioners who have completed 10 years, have already been
protected. The learned Addl. GP submits, on instructions, that the
benefits of the order passed by the Writ Court would be made
available to the Petitioners within 90 days.
Gauri Gaekwad 5 of 6
951 to 954.CP-572-2025.odt
7. Hence, these Petitions are disposed off, by consent of
the Petitioners. We, however, record that after 90 days, if the
Petitioners are required to once again approach this Court, the
conduct of all such Officers who would contribute to the decision
making process in deference to the orders of this Court dated
14th November, 2024 and 30th January 2025, would be treated as
Contemnors and the matters would be considered as aggravated
contempt.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Gauri Gaekwad 6 of 6
