(1) 23 & 24-WP-6854-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6854/2026 MR. ASHISH GULAB LANJEWAR AND OTHERS VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6864/2026 MR. SHUBHAM VILAS MESHRAM AND OTHERS VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6847/2026 MR. GANESH NILKANTH GANVIR AND OTHERS. VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) in all petitions. Mr. S.A. Ashirgade, Addl. GP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in WP/6854/2026. Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in WP/6864/2026. Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 5 in WP/6854/2026 and WP/6864/2026. Mr. B.N. Jaipurkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 5 in WP/6847/2026. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2026. 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties are ad idem that the issue involved is covered by the order dated 19.08.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 978/2025 (Anil Bhimrao Kakade & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.), and other connected matters. The relevant portion of the order dated 19.08.2026 reads as under: Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:13003-DB (2) 23 & 24-WP-6854-2026 “1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 : “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…….” 4. 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 petitions are accordingly allowed in terms of above. Necessary benefits be extended as expeditiously as possible. 5. The petitions are disposed of.” 3. Accordingly and for the reasons stated in the order mentioned above, the petitions are allowed. Necessary benefits be extended to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, if there is no other legal impediment. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya