6-WP-4423-2022 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4423 OF 2022 (Madhukar s/o Prabhakar Bhoyar & Ors. Vs. The Government of Maharashtra & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. S.G. Karmarkar, Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6. Mr. S.M. Puranik, Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 7. ..... CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. SEPTEMBER 28, 2026 The petitioners are seeking directions to hold and declare that they are entitled for arrears of salary as per the 6th Pay Commission recommended prior to 30/11/2010. 2] The learned A.G.P. and Mr. S.M. Puranik, Counsel for the Corporation, have invited our attention to a judgment in Dr. Narayan Haribhau Girdhar & Ors. Vs. City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation [2015(3) Mh.L.J. 105], to contend that the issue involved in the present case, which includes payment of certain amount to the petitioners and similarly placed employees, has been considered by this Court to deny the benefit. Our attention is invited to paragraph 13 of the said judgment, which reads as under : “13. Thus, the receipt of excess grants by Nagpur Municipal Corporation from Zilla Parishad or State Govt. and its appropriation or otherwise is an issue essentially between Nagpur Municipal Corporation and those authorities. It does not confer any right upon any petitioner to claim arrears on account of sixth wage revision for any period prior to 1- 2026:BHC-NAG:12776-DB 6-WP-4423-2022 2 12-2010. It cannot be in dispute that provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 or those 1981 Rules framed thereunder do not apply to the schools of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. Hence, any direction issued by the State Govt. thereunder cannot confer any right upon teachers working with Corporation. Moreover, such a direction, unless it has a statutory sanction, cannot supersede the 1963 Service Bye-laws mentioned supra.” 3] As could be seen, the Court in unequivocal terms held that any payment made, by itself would not confer any right upon persons, like petitioners, to claim arrears on account of sixth pay revision for any period prior to 1/12/2010. In the subsequent paragraph, the Division Bench observed that no mala fide was attributed to the Corporation nor was there any material to doubt the bona fides of the Corporation in selecting 1/12/2010 as the date for extending benefits of sixth pay revision to its employees. 4] That being so, the respondents are right in contending that the issue involved is covered by the aforesaid judgment. 5] For the aforementioned reasons as also the reasons stated in Dr. Narayan Girdhar’s case, the petition is dismissed. (NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Sumit Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 28/09/2026 18:28:23