(1) 9-WP-5005-2025 (D) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5005/2025 MAROTI ANKUSH BHALAVI AND ANOTHER VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH, MUMBAI AND OTHERS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. D.U. Thakare, Advocate for the Petitioner (s). Mr. B.M. Lonare, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Abhijit Rao h/f. Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.5 CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026. 1. Heard. 2. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved is covered by the order dated 19.08.2026 passed in Writ Petition No. 978 of 2025 (Anil Bhimrao Kakade & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and other connected matters. He submits that similar order could be passed. Accordingly, the following order is passed: 3. The prayer is to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners as per the minimum pay-scale at the lowest grade in the regular pay-scale extended to the regular employees holding the same post. 4. During the course of hearing, the question was raised as to whether the minimum pay-scale at the lowest grade will include the grade pay and Dearness Allowance. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Tej Singh & Ors. v. Sarvesh Kaushal & Anr. (Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 699-700 of 2015 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2782-2783 of 2015), while dealing with similar such issues, has held as under : Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:11893-DB (2) 9-WP-5005-2025 (D) “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the expression “minimum of the pay” mentioned in paragraph 22 is intended to mean not only the basic pay + grade pay, but also the dearness allowance that comes along with the basic pay and grade pay…….” 6. That being so, we do not find any reason why should the respondents not pay the minimum pay-scale as prayed for by the petitioners. The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of above. Necessary benefits be extended as expeditiously as possible. 7. The petition is disposed of. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya