4.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 4 WRIT PETITION NO. 1078 OF 2020 The State Of Maharashtra Through The Commissioner Of Agriculture And Others VERSUS The Shetkari Shetmajoor Panchayat Maharashtra And Others ….. Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Petitioners - State Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the respective Respondents Mr. Kamble Dinkar G, Advocate for Nos. 3 (a) and 13 ….. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 24.03.2026 PER COURT : 1. The affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein specific statements are made in Paragraph Nos. 3 to 6, which read as follows : “3. I say and submit that the 52 labourers in Writ Petition No. 1078 of 2020 were engaged as daily wage earners and were paid wages strictly in accordance with the minimum wages applicable at the relevant time, commensurate with the work performed by them. I further submit that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said labourers have already received the wages legally due and payable to them, and therefore, no question arises for payment of any differential amount, including at the rate of 1/26th of the wages of permanent Government employees. 4. I say and submit that the decision to retain those labourers who have worked for 240 days continuously or more in a year has been taken in view of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 15221 of 2017 dated 04.07.2019, as well as in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 16.05.2024. I further submit that such retention has been effected strictly in compliance with the aforesaid judgment and Government Resolution, and is applicable only to those labourers who fulfill the prescribed criteria therein. 1 2026:BHC-AUG:13720 4.odt 5. I say and submit that, out of the 52 labourers in Writ Petition No. 1078 of 2020, 11 labourers have been found eligible and their names have been included in the seniority list. I further submit that the said 11 labourers shall be considered for induction into service in future, in accordance with their position in the seniority list and subject to availability of vacancies at the relevant time. 6. I further submit that, in view of the position emerging from the result of the year 2018, there is no impediment in considering the case of the said 11 eligible labourers with regard to payment of the differential amount, if otherwise admissible in accordance with law. However, as regards the remaining labourers, who continue to be engaged on daily wage basis, I submit that they have been paid wages as per the applicable minimum wages, and therefore, no question arises for payment of any differential amount to them.” 2. The learned AGP appearing for the petitioners submits that the present petition can be disposed of in view of the specific contentions raised in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the State, as referred to above. He further makes an oral grievance that all the employees are fighting for their rights. Therefore, he submits that necessary directions need to be issued to the authorities to grant the benefits within the stipulated period. 3. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of pursuant to the reply filed by the State Government. 4. The authorities are directed to grant the benefits to the employees within a period of three months from today. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Sameer/March-2026 2