26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 26 WRIT PETITION NO. 12322 OF 2016 The Superintending Engineer Msedcl Latur And Another VERSUS Prabhakar Rangnath Awade ….. Mr. Gaikwad Anil M., Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R. D. Biradar, Advocate for Respondent ….. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 24.03.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By the present petition, petitioner assails the order dated 04.04.2016 passed by Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No.18/2013, whereby the complaint filed by respondent came to be allowed. 2. The learned counsel Mr. Gaikwad for the petitioners vehemently submits that the Industrial Court, Latur committed an error in allowing the complaint filed by the respondent. He submits that a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was instituted against the respondent–employee. The respondent was kept under suspension from 03.04.2004 till his retirement. Thereafter, his suspension was revoked and a departmental inquiry was initiated. He further submits that the respondent was tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1 2026:BHC-AUG:13601 26.odt 1988 and was acquitted. The State Government appeal against acquittal, but the acquittal was confirmed by this Court. In the departmental inquiry, punishment was imposed and the suspension period was treated as punishment coupled with punishment of witholding one yearly increment. The respondent did not challenge that order. However, after four years of retirement, he filed a complaint before the Industrial Court only on the ground that some other employees were granted benefits. Therefore, he submits that the Industrial Court ought not to have directed the petitioner to pay salary for the suspension period i.e. from 02.04.2004 to 18.05.2006. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Biradar for the respondent supports the order passed by the Industrial Court. He submits that other similarly situated employees, including one Shivaji Shinde, were granted similar benefits. He further relies upon the circular issued by the petitioner dated 26.12.2008 and submits that the said circular applies to the respondent. Therefore, according to him, the Industrial Court has rightly passed the order. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and after going through the record, it is not in dispute that some similarly situated employees who were suspended were granted salary for the suspension period in terms of the circular dated 26.12.2008. This aspect has been considered by the Industrial Court. In view of the fact that similarly situated employees were granted benefits under the said circular, upholding the principle of parity, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition. 2 26.odt 5. It is, however, made clear that the respondent–employee shall not be entitled to interest on the said amount. To that extent, the order dated 04.04.2016 passed by the Industrial Court stands modified. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submits that the respondent will not claim any interest on the delayed payment. 7. In view thereof, the present petition stands disposed of. 8. Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Sameer/March-2026 3