1 21) WP 186-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 186 OF 2026 SHADIR MD. SHEIKH RAHIM QURESHI VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECY., DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, MUMBAI AND ORS. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mrs. Shilpa P. Giratkar (Giripunje), Advocate for petitioner(s). Shri V.A.Thakare, AGP for respondent/State. Shri N.S.Rao, Advocate for respondent no. 3. CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 15/10/2026. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to re-evaluate the amount of pension, provident fund, gratuity of the petitioner after taking into account the payment sought in and release the differential amount along with interest @ 18% per annum from March, 2020 to 31/07/2024. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the petitioner was serving as an employee of respondent no. 3-Chandrapur District Mathadi Board. On 29/02/2020, while discharging his duty as such with the office of respondent no. 3, the services of the petitioner were sought on deputation by the order of the Minister who was also Guardian Minister for the region, vide communication letter dated 29/02/2020. 3. The petitioner submitted various representations to the respondent authorities for releasing his salary. Thereafter, the respondent authorities released his salary 2026:BHC-NAG:13971-DB 2 21) WP 186-26.odt belatedly only for the month of March-2020. However, no salary was released to the petitioner from April-2020. The petitioner got retired on 31/07/2024 by superannuation from the post of Inspector. The retirement order was issued by respondent no. 3 and only amount of Rs. 14,94,993/- was released as his retiral benefit. Therefore, the petitioner filed a representation which was also not decided by the respondent no. 3. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Per contra, Shri Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that without any deputation order, the petitioner had joined the office of the Minister and therefore, the salary was not paid to him as it was a misconduct. He further submits that accordingly, excluding the period within which the petitioner was working with the Minister, the entire benefits were calculated and given to the petitioner. He submits that there was a misconduct on the part of the petitioner. In addition to that, despite a communication was issued to the petitioner to submit the service book and other documents, the same were not submitted and therefore, the petition being without any cause of action deserves to be dismissed. 5. Considering the fact that the representation of the petitioner is still pending, we ask Shri Rao, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 to consider the same and re-examine the issue. He submits that, that can be done subject to the co-operation on the part of the petitioner. 3 21) WP 186-26.odt 6. In view of that, we direct the respondent no. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner and re-examine the issue whether the petitioner is entitled for any additional amount towards pension, provident fund, gratuity etc. in the light of his representation. 7. If the petitioner is entitled for the same, the same shall be granted to him and if respondent no. 3 is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled, the reason shall be communicated to him by respondent no. 3. 8. The representation shall be decided within a period of four weeks, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate with respondent no. 3 to decide the said representation. 9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ( RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE , J.) B.T.K. Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 16/10/2026 19:25:21