102.WP.5783.2026 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5783 OF 2026 Shri Pravin Shalikram Chapekar Vs. The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors. ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr. Anubhav A. Mardikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. ------------------------------- CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND R AJ D. WAKODE , JJ. DATE : 13.10.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is an employee of respondent – Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. On 04.05.2009, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In view of the registration of the aforesaid offence, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 16.06.2009, thereby initiating departmental proceedings against him. The departmental enquiry culminated in the passing of an order dated 07.05.2010, whereby the petitioner was removed from service. 3. In the meantime, the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges by the learned Special Court vide judgment dated 15.03.2011. The petitioner challenged the order of removal dated 07.05.2010 before the learned Labour Court, Satara, in Complaint (ULP) No. 45 of 2010. The said complaint was 2026:BHC-NAG:13790-DB 102.WP.5783.2026 2/3 allowed, and the order of punishment was set aside. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service vide judgment dated 09.02.2016. The said judgment was upheld by the learned Industrial Court, which dismissed the revision filed by the respondents vide judgment dated 07.11.2020. 4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated in service by the respondents. However, he was denied monetary benefits on the ground of the principle of ‘no work, no pay’. Aggrieved by the denial of such benefits, the petitioner preferred a first appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was partly allowed. Being dissatisfied with the said decision, the petitioner preferred a second appeal on 29.09.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Second Appellate Authority refused to decide the aforesaid second appeal on its merits on the ground that the appeal against the petitioner’s acquittal, preferred by the State, was pending. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner filed a review application under Regulation 106 of the Employees’ Service Regulations, 2005, on 10.03.2026. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, though the second appeal was preferred in the year 2021, the Appellate Authority has failed to decide the same on its merits, despite the lapse of about five years. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court. 102.WP.5783.2026 3/3 7. Since an innocuous prayer is being made by the petitioner and the fact that the second appeal arises out of the petitioner’s service conditions, which are independent of the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, we dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to respondent No. 2 – the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Mumbai, to decide the aforesaid second appeal along with the review within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. 8. The petitioner undertakes to produce a copy of this order before respondent No. 2 within one week from today. The decision taken thereupon shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of such decision. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Vijaykumar Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 14/10/2026 12:22:40