{1} wp10770-26.doc drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10770 OF 2026 Abdul Quadeer Abdul Haeed PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Shaikh Mohammad Naseer, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondent - State ....… AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11334 OF 2026 Pandhari Shreepatrao Waragane PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Gajanan S. Shete, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent - State ....… AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11335 OF 2026 Anantrao Vitthalrao Soudagar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Gajanan S. Shete, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for Respondent - State ....… AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11336 OF 2026 Vinayak Keshavrao Kalambarkar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS 2026:BHC-AUG:39814-DB {2} wp10770-26.doc ....... Mr. Gajanan S. Shete, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondent - State ....… AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11339 OF 2026 Arun Vyankatrao Angule and Others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Santosh N. Patne, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondent - State ....… AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11340 OF 2026 Sanjay Prabhakarrao Rampurkar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Gajanan S. Shete, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent - State ....… AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11341 OF 2026 Purushottam Narayanrao Baradkar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Gajanan S. Shete, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N. D. Batuble, AGP for Respondent - State ....… AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11344 OF 2026 {3} wp10770-26.doc Manmant Sangappa Mali and Others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Santosh S. Patne, Advocate for the Petitioners Ms.Neha B. Kamble, AGP for Respondent - State ....… AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11345 OF 2026 Vitthal Basvanappa Patne and Others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Santosh N. Patne, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent - State ....… AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11346 OF 2026 Suhas Ramkrishna Malode and Others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Santosh N. Patne, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent - State ....… AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11407 OF 2026 Venkat Madhavro Borgaonkar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Sandesh K. Kamble, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. B.B.Bhise, AGP for Respondent - State ....… {4} wp10770-26.doc [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.] DATE : 31 st AUGUST, 2026 ORDER : 1. Indisputably, the issue raised in these petitions is squarely covered by the orders dated 3rd July, 2026 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Circuit Bench at Kolhapur in Writ Petition No. 5445 of 2026 and dated 19th June, 2026 in Writ Petition No. 3412 of 2026. 2. Reliance is also placed by the Petitioners on order dated 18th March, 2026 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Bombay in Writ Petition No. 15662 of 2025. 3. For the reasons stated in the above mentioned orders, the Writ Petitions are partly allowed with following directions: (a) The Petitioners would be entitled for monetary benefits / difference of pensionary benefits as per the actuals w.e.f. the respective dates of their superannuation. (b) The pensionary benefits of the Petitioners would be recalculated by including the annual increment in their last drawn salary prior to their superannuation and such recalculated pensionary benefits shall be {5} wp10770-26.doc payable to them. (c) Arrears if any, shall be paid to them within a period of 90 days. The Petitioners have approached belatedly before this Court and, therefore, akin to the orders passed in several matters, they would not be entitled for the interest component. [ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE JUDGE drp/wp10770-26.doc