28-WP-2103-2025.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2103 OF 2025 Sunil s/o Vinayakrao Chaudhary ..Petititoner Amravati. Versus. The Chief Engineer-II, Prime Minister Housing ..Respondents Scheme/Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority,(MHADA) , Mumbai and another. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V.A.Kothale Advocate for petitioner. Mr. J. B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent no.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM :- ANIL S. KILOR and RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATE :- 8th SEPTEMBER, 2025 P. C. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this petition got superannuated on 31.07.2016 from the Public Works Department (PWD),Yavatmal. Thereafter under the Prime Minister Awas Yojana(Urban), he was given contractual appointment by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 05.04.2017 on the post of ‘Municipal Engineer’ for a period of three months on a fixed honourarium of Rs.40,000/- per month. As per the Capacity Building Activities (Norms, Fund Disbursal Processes and Plan Templates, for Bachelor degree holders for Medium Cities with 5-10 lakhs population, honourarium of Rs.40,000/- is fixed and accordingly, the same honourarium was paid to the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner was extended time to time and last extension was granted to the petitioner on 17.05.2024 for a period of nine months on the same honourarium of Rs.40,000/-. 3. Shri Kothale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was abruptly discontinued though he was entitled to continue on contractual basis till he attains the age of 70 years. He further submits he is 2025:BHC-NAG:8826-DB 28-WP-2103-2025.odt 2 entitled to receive more salary/honourarium than Rs.40,000/- as was paid to him. For the said purpose, he made a request to the respondent no.2, however the same has not been considered. 4. On the other hand, Shri Kasat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, argued that the petitioner has no right in the contractual appointment. The Clause under which the petitioner claims to continue with such contractual appointment upto 70 years, that Clause is not applicable to the petitioner as his appointment was made under the PMAY(U) Scheme. 5. In the light of the rival submissions of the parties, we have perused the record. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis under the PMAY(U) Scheme and his initial appointment was for three months from the date of letter/order dated 05.04.2017. The said letter/order dated 05.04.2017 shows consolidated salary/honourarium fixed at Rs.40,000/- per month, which the petitioner was received during his contractual appointment. It is also not in dispute that the contractual appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time and the last extension granted to the petitioner vide order dated 17.05.2024 was for nine months. The last contractual appointment letter/order dated 17.05.2024 also shows consolidated honourarium of the petitioner was Rs.40,000/- and the appointment was for nine months. 6. Thus, it is evident that every appointment was for fixed period and on a fixed honourarium. Therefore, it cannot be said that the services of the petitioner was abruptly discontinued. 7. Admittedly the petitioner’s appointment on contractual basis was under the PMAY(U) Scheme and nothing has been pointed out by the petitioner that he has a right in such contractual appointment. In absence of any such right in favour of the petitioner, the extension sought by way of present petition to continue the petitioner on contractual basis, is misconceived and cannot be granted. 28-WP-2103-2025.odt 3 Accordingly, the prayer for grant of extension to the appointment of the petitioner on contractual basis is rejected. 8. As far as the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to receive salary/honourarium more than Rs.40,000/- is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 is disputing the aforesaid claim. 9. We find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the petitioner has accepted the contractual appointment on a fixed honourarium of Rs.40,000/- as mentioned in the appointment orders. Nothing has been pointed out to show that till 28.11.2022 any protest was made as regards such honourarium received by the petitioner. The letter dated 28.11.2022 is the first occasion when such protest was made by the petitioner. Since there is no decision on such letter/application dated 28.11.2022 by the respondent no.1-Chief Engineer- II, Prime Minister Housing Scheme/Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority (MHADA), we are of the opinion that purpose would be served if the respondent no.1 is directed to decide the claim made by the petitioner vide letter/application dated 28.11.2022. 10. In the circumstances, as regards the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to receive more honourarium/salary than what he received while working on contractual basis under PMAY(U) Scheme, we direct the respondent no.1-The Chief Engineer-II, Prime Minister Housing Scheme/MHADA, Mumbai, to decide the letter/application dated 28.11.2022 of the petitioner within a reasonable period and in any case within four months from today. 11. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Andurkar.