Order wp 1904 & 1906.2026.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1904 of 2026 [Dilip Hari Sonule and ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Rural Department and ors.] with Writ Petition No. 1906 of 2026 [Nama Tantuji Raut and anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Rural Department and ors.] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Atul Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. N. R. Patil, AGP for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 4 Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar, Advocate for respondent No. 5 CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : 30-09-2026. On 13-8-2026, following order was passed. “1. The prayer is to direct respondents to consider the petitioners' case for extending the benefits of the old pension scheme in terms of Rule 30 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. 2. Learned counsel appearing for Zilla Parishad submits that vide letter dated 25.02.2026, the petitioners were informed that since their appointment was made after the cut-off date, i.e. 01.11.2005, the old pension scheme is not applicable to them. This communication has been not challenged. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the communication issued to Petitioners-Dilip Hari Sonule and Nama Tantuji Raut were received recently. 4. Thus, two out of five petitioners claim that this communication was received recently. The other 2026:BHC-NAG:13029-DB Order wp 1904 & 1906.2026.odt 2 petitioners are not even saying that they received this communication. 5. We would like to know from Respondent No.5 as to when was this communication served upon the petitioners. Necessary details will be furnished on the next date. 6. We put the petitioners to notice that suppression of fact will attract dismissal with costs. 7. Stand over week commencing 31.08.2026.” As could be seen, the Zilla Parishad has vide letter dated 25-2-2026 informed the petitioners that since their appointments were made after the cut-off date i.e. 1-11-2005, the old pension scheme is not applicable to them. We have also noted that this communication has been not challenged. 2. In response to aforesaid order, we were informed that the communication dated 25-2-2026 was served upon the petitioners on different dates starting from 9-5-2026 to 6-7-2026. One of the petitioners, however, was served on 20-8-2026. No steps have been taken to challenge the said communication. 3. The argument of petitioners is that the decision so taken is contrary to the directions issued by this Court. Such an argument is of no help to take a plea that the decision so taken will require no challenge. In other words, if the petitioners have accepted the decision, having not challenged the same, no further order will be required. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are, however, at Order wp 1904 & 1906.2026.odt 3 liberty to challenge the said decision. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) wasnik Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 01/10/2026 11:02:29