3-CAO-1071-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1071 OF 2026 (DELAY) IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 10338 OF 2026 (REVIEW) IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3170 OF 2022 (D) AND MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 10338 OF 2026 (REVIEW) IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3170 OF 2022 (D) (Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran & Ors. Vs. Ramkrushna s/o Pandhari Honale & Anr.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. D.V. Mahajan, Counsel for the applicants. Mr. A.V. Palshikar, A.G.P. for respondent no.2/State. ..... CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. OCTOBER 9, 2026 Civil Application No. 1071/2026 is seeking to condone delay of 400 days in filing application to review of order dated 24/2/2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3170/2022. The pleadings in the application as also the arguments put forth by the applicants is that the delay occurred because of administrative contingency. 2] It is well settled by various judgments of this Court as also the Hon’ble Supreme Court that such a plea to seek condonation of delay is not permissible. Thus, the delay has been not justified. 3] That apart, the order of which review is sought is based on the statement made by the applicants/ 2026:BHC-NAG:13562-DB 3-CAO-1071-2026 2 original respondent nos. 1 to 4. The order reads as under : “Mr. D.V. Mahajan, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioner in the present petition is identically placed like the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3815/2012 with connected matters and the fact in issue in the petition is covered by the said decision. He also submitted that the petition can be disposed of in terms of the decision in the said petition. 2. His statement is accepted. 3. Having considered the statement of the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition in terms of what has been held in Writ Petition No.3815/2012 with connected matters decided on 29-08- 013. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.” 4] As could be seen, the Counsel for the applicants, upon instructions, made a statement that the original petitioner is identically placed like the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3815/2012 and connected matters. He submitted that the present petition can also be disposed of in terms of the said decision. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the present petition in terms of what has been held in Writ Petition No. 3815/2012. 5] The Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 3815/2012 held as under : “6] In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute by holding that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the pay-scale in the cadre of Junior Engineer upon completion of 12 years from the date of their entry in the cadre of Technical Assistant/Mistry/Karkoon, etc. It is made clear that the claim of the petitioners has been considered since the petitioners have restricted their claim for grant of benefit in 3-CAO-1071-2026 3 accordance with the Circular dated 18.6.1998. We make it clear that our judgment and order may not be construed as entitlement of the petitioners to any other promotional or other benefits. The same would be construed strictly in accordance with the requirements of service conditions governing the employees of respondent no.1 Corporation. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.” 6] Thus, the Court held that the petitioners therein are entitled to the benefit of the pay scale in the cadre of Junior Engineer upon completion of twelve years from the date of their entry in the cadre of Technical Assistant/Mistry/Karkoon, etc. The Court, then, made clear that the claim of the petitioners was considered since they restricted their claim for grant of benefit in accordance with the Circular dated 18/6/1998. The Court, then, clarified that the said judgment and order may not be construed as an entitlement of the petitioners to any other promotional or other benefits. The Court further held that the same would be construed strictly in accordance with the requirements of service conditions governing the employees of respondent no.1 – Corporation. 7] If such is the order, we do not find what prejudice will be caused to the applicants herein to not adhere to the said directions. 8] The Counsel for the applicants submits that the relief will run contrary to the provisions of the Notification dated 26/2/2002. By the said Notification, the eligibility of the candidates for appointment on the post of Civil Engineer is provided. 3-CAO-1071-2026 4 9] We do not find any nexus of the said Notification with that of the entitlement of the pay scale on completion of twelve years service, which otherwise is permissible under ‘Assured Career Progression’ scheme available to the employees of the respective cadres. 10] That being so, and since the order sought to be reviewed was passed based on the statement made by the Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4, this case not a case to invoke review jurisdiction. 11] We may note here that the employees have filed contempt petition, and thereafter, the present step has been taken. It, thus, appears to us that the belated step has been taken by the applicants to avoid their obligation to extend necessary benefits arising out of the aforesaid order. 12] In view of above, the applications are rejected. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Sumit Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 09/10/2026 19:01:16