11_WP_17503_2025.DOC Prasad IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.17503 OF 2025 Suresh Vishnu Jadhav …...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra thr. the Sec. Ministry Of Labour And Labour Welfare & Ors. …...Respondents _______ Mr. Divyesh Jain a/w Shantanu S Kolhe, for the Petitioner. Mr. P.P. Kakde, Addl. GP a/w A.R. Deolekar, AGP, for the Respondent - State. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE: 23rd SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties in the present petition. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for the following substantive reliefs: “[A] Call for record and proceedings of the case. [B] Quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 20.06.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 Joint Labour Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai and impugned communication dated 09.07.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 Pune Mathadi Hamal and other Manual Workers Board, Pune and for that purpose issue necessary orders. [C] Issue appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the Respondent No.3 Pune Mathadi Hamal and other Manual Workers Board, Pune to disburse an amount of Rs.6,07,858/- as and by way of medical leave encashment in favour of the petitioner along with interest thereupon and for that purpose issue necessary orders. [D] Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, direct the respondent No.3 Pune Mathadi Hamal and other Manual Workers Board, Pune to forthwith disburse an amount of Rs. 6,07,858/- as and by way of medical leave encashment in favour of the petitioner along with interest thereupon and for that purpose issue necessary orders. [E] Grant ad interim relief in terms of prayer clauses 'D'. Page 1 of 6 11_WP_17503_2025.DOC [F] Pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The relevant facts which are required to be noted are as follows: 2.1 The Petitioner had joined as a Clerk with Respondent No.3-Board in the year 1992 and after continuous service with the Board he superannuated on 31.12.2024. After his superannuation he made and application to Respondent No.2-Joint Labour Commissioner, praying for disbursement of Rs.6,07,858/- as and by way of medical leave encashment. 2.2 On 05.03.2025, Respondent No.2 directed Respondent No.3 to take decision on the Petitioner’s application. Respondent No.3 is also stated to have sent a clarification on 05.03.2025. 2.3 On 20.06.2025, Respondent No.2–Joint Labour Commissioner denied the claim of the Petitioner by a communication, inter alia, stating that the Maharashtra State Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1981 have been made applicable to Respondent No.3-Board, which do not make any provision for the medical leave encashment and hence the request as made by the Petitioner for such medical leave encashment cannot be granted. 2.4 Further by communication dated 09.07.2025, Respondent No.3 informed the Petitioner that in view of the Maharashtra Civil Service (General Condition of Services) Rules, 1981 having been made applicable to Respondent No.3, medical leave cannot be encashed in favour of the Petitioner. 3. On such factual matrix, we have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. His submission in regard to the Petitioner’s legal right to claim such encashment of 11_WP_17503_2025.DOC medical leave, he states that reliance of the Petitioner is on the Circular dated 25.06.1993, under which the Board had resolved at the relevant time that encashment of medial leave would be granted. The Petitioner also moved an application dated 25.06.2025 under the RTI to verify if the resolution dated 25.06.1993 has been cancelled or set aside and the reply received was vide communication dated 15.07.2025, stating that it was not cancelled. It is in these circumstances, the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the legal right to medical encashment has closed from circular dated 25.06.1993 which has been issued by the Respondent No.3–Board, constituted under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers Act, 1969. He submitted that the Petitioner would become entitled for medical leave encashment under the provisions of the said circular. It was further submitted that the stand taken by Respondent No.2 is not correct that the Maharashtra Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1981 would become applicable, inasmuch as, the Board cannot be held to be at par with the State Government so that such Rules be adopted by the Board. It is also his contention that many other employees were granted such benefit. It is his submission that such Rules would become applicable only to the State Government and not the employees of the Mathadi Board. It is his contention that circular being not withdrawn, such accrued right under the circular which was conferred on the employees could not be taken. 5. On the other hand, on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3, reply Affidavit of Shri Nitin Krishna Kavale, Asst. Labour Commissioner and the Chairman of 11_WP_17503_2025.DOC Respondent No.3 Board is filed, in which, in opposing the petition, it is inter alia contended that the Petitioner’s case ought not to be accepted for the reason that subsequent decision was taken by the Board and more particularly in its Board meeting held on 31.05.2010, when a resolution was passed to make Maharashtra Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1981 applicable to the Mathadi Board, and accordingly the terms and conditions of services are now governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1981, which includes the Maharashtra Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1981. It is therefore contended that the resolution of the Board dated 25.06.1993, on which the reliance is placed by the Petitioner is no longer helpful. The relevant averments made in the reply Affidavit are required to be noted, which read thus: “8. I say that some of the Mathadi Boards in the State of Maharashtra had made Maharashtra Civil Services Rules applicable to their employees and most of the Mathadi Boards were paying salaries to their employees as per the pay scales applicable to the State Government employees but there was no parity in the service conditions of all the Mathadi Boards. The State Government had therefore directed vide its Circular No. SGA- 152002(37/3)/Kamgar-5, Mantralaya, Mumbai dated 10.10.2002 to pass appropriate resolutions in the board meetings to make various M.C.S. Rules applicable to its employees. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 3 Board had passed Resolution in its Board meeting held on 31.05.2010 and had made various M.C.S. Rules applicable to its employees including Maharashtra Civil services (Leave) Rules, 1981. The said meeting was attended by the Union Representatives representing the employees of the Respondent Board as well as by the Employers Representative and Government Representative and the said Resolution was passed with consent of the said representatives in Tripartite Board. 9. I say that the Respondent Board had earlier passed Resolution in its Board meeting held on 25.06.1993, whereby the employees of the Board were granted Medical Leave with an option to accumulate the said medical leave and its encashment on certain terms and conditions. However, after making the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981 applicable to the employee of the Respondent Board, the Resolution passed in the meeting held on 25.06.1993 in respect of Medical Leave had lost its applicability and the service conditions regarding Medical Leave are governed by Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981. 10. I say that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981 did not provide for encashment of Medical Leave to the employees and as such the employees of Respondent Board were not entitled for encashment of Medical Leave but inadvertently the Respondent Board continued to provide leave encashment facility to its employees even 11_WP_17503_2025.DOC after Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981 were made applicable. 11. I say that the Petitioner retired on superannuation on 31.12.2024 and on retirement claimed Rs. 6,07,858/- towards encashment of accumulated Medical Leave and when the matter came before the then Chairman of the board for approval of the said claim, the then Chairman noticed the irregularity in the claim of encashment of medical leave. It came to his notice that there was earlier Resolution of the Board for grant of medical leave encashment but there was no such provision of encashment of medical leave in Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981 subsequently made applicable to the employees of the Respondent Board. The then Chairman of the Board therefore informed about the same to the Jt. Commissioner of Labour (Mathadi) vide his letter dated 5.03.2025 and sought guidance as to whether the employees of the Respondent Board should be provided the benefit of medical leave encashment or not. 12. I say that the Respondent Board received letter dated 20.06.2025 from the office of Jt. Commissioner of Labour (Mathadi), whereby it was informed to the Respondent Board that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981 have been made applicable to the employees of the Respondent Board and there is no provision of medical leave encashment in the said Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981, hence the claim of Mr. Suresh Vishnu Jadhav, the Petitioner herein, cannot be granted. 13. I say that the Petitioner had also approached the office of Commissioner of Labour vide his letter dated 4.03.2025 for grant of benefit of medical leave encashment and in response thereto the Respondent No. 3 Board received letter dated 12.03.2025 from the office of Commissioner of Labour whereby the Respondent Board was directed to take appropriate action on the letter of Mr. Suresh Vishnu Jadhav as per the directions given by the Jt. Commissioner of Labour (Mathadi). 14. I say that the Respondent No. 3 thereafter vide its letter dated 9.07.2025 informed the Petitioner that his claim of medical leave encashment cannot be granted in view of the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981 having been made applicable to the employees of the Respondent Board. I say that thus the Respondent Board has not committed any illegality or irregularity while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner and the impugned communication of the Respondent Board dated 9.07.2025 is perfectly legal, proper and justified and needs to be confirmed by this Hon'ble Court. 15. I say that the Petitioner has contended that the right to encashment of medical leave flows from the Resolution dated 25.06.1993 whereby the employees of the Respondent Board were conferred with the benefits of medical leave encashment, however, the Respondent Board has passed subsequent resolution in the meeting held on 31.05.2010, whereby the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981 have been made applicable to the employees of the Respondent Board. The said resolution was passed by the full- fledged Tripartite Board in confirmation with the State Government directives to bring uniformity in the service conditions of the employees of all the Mathadi Boards. Therefore, after the subsequent resolution of the Board dated 31.05.2010, the service conditions made applicable to the employees of the Board vide resolution dated 25.06.1993 cease to apply and stands amended. The Petitioner therefore is not entitled to claim the benefit of medical leave encashment on the basis of resolution dated 25.06.1993 11_WP_17503_2025.DOC contending that the said resolution has not been set aside by the Respondent Board.” 6. It is on the aforesaid conspectus we have heard learned Counsel for the parties, we find no substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the Respondent that mere applicability of the circular at the relevant time would not accrue any legal right on the Petitioner and more particularly when now a position subsists from the year 2010 that the Mathadi Board has adopted applicability of the Maharashtra Civil Service Rules, 1981. Such applicability is certainly not set aside or challenged by the Petitioner. We are not persuaded to agree such contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioner. 7. Considering the scheme of this Act where the Board is empowered to take its independent decisions within its authority as conferred by the Maharashtra Civil Service Rules, 1981 and specific Rules namely Maharashtra Service (Leave) Rules, 1981, do not make any provision for encashment of medical leave. 8. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, Petitioner would not have any legal right to seek encashment merely because some benefit was granted under the circular at the relevant time. 9. Petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly rejected. No costs. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) PRASAD RAJENDRASING RAJPUT Digitally signed by PRASAD RAJENDRASING RAJPUT Date: 2026.09.28 11:14:18 +0530