Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 304
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGEHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY J. MANTRI
SANDHYA AJAY AWATE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. THE SEC. HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT DEPT AND ORS – Respondent
WP/17745/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Avinash Belge
For the Respondents: P.P. Kakade, M.P. Thakur, Priyanka Chavan, Aditya Deolekar, Vijay Badgujar, P.N. Diwan, A.K. Naik, D.S. Deshmukh, Karan Thorat, N.M. Mehra, Rui Rodrigues, Aadesh V. Konde-Deshmukh, Sainath S. Garade, Shruti P. Pokale, Yogesh A. Sakale, Sangram Desai
Unless orders of a Grievance Committee are challenged, they must be implemented by the Management; if not implemented, the University is obliged to initiate disciplinary action under the Penalties Uniform Statutes.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Public Universities (Penalties to be imposed upon Erring Affiliated Colleges/Recognized Institutions) Uniform Statutes, 2018 - Statute No.1 of 2019 - Implementation of Grievance Committee orders - University's duty to take action if management fails to implement - Principle: Orders passed by the Grievance Committee, unless challenged by the aggrieved parties and the matter being sub-judice, are required to be implemented by the Management. If such orders are not implemented, the University would be obliged to exercise its powers under the Penalties Uniform Statutes. (Paras 2 and 3)
(B) Disposal of writ petitions - If the management has challenged the order of the Grievance Committee, the petitions preferred by the beneficiaries seeking directions to the University would not survive; however, if the orders are not challenged, the University has to proceed expeditiously and initiate appropriate steps, including disciplinary action, under the Penalties Uniform Statutes. (Paras 3 and 7)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioners, beneficiaries of Grievance Committee orders dated 20th June 2024, filed writ petitions seeking directions to the University to give effect to those orders and to take action against the Management for non-implementation. The Management, on instructions, stated that the order of the Grievance Committee had not been challenged and that it had already granted the benefit of the 7th Pay Commission with effect from 1st January 2025. The Petitioners disputed this and reserved their right to claim benefits from 1st January 2016 to 31st December 2024 in view of the Grievance Committee's order.
Findings of Court:
In view of the Management's statement that the Grievance Committee's order had not been challenged, the petitions were disposed of in light of the final order of this Court dated 15th July 2025 in a related matter. The University is at liberty to follow the course set out in that decision and take appropriate action in accordance with the Penalties Uniform Statutes, expeditiously, unless there is any legal impediment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the University is obliged to implement the Grievance Committee orders and take action against the Management in the absence of a challenge to those orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that unless the orders of the Grievance Committee are challenged, they must be implemented by the Management, and the University is obliged to initiate appropriate steps, including disciplinary action, under the Penalties Uniform Statutes. Since the Management had not challenged the orders and had partially implemented the pay benefits, the writ petitions were disposed of, leaving the University to act in accordance with the law.
Result: Petitions disposed of in light of the final order dated 15th July 2025; the University is at liberty to take action under the Penalties Uniform Statutes.
2026:BHC-AS:5238-DB
Digitally
signed by
GAURI AMIT
GAURI
GAEKWAD
AMIT
GAEKWAD Date: 904.WP-17745-2025.odt
2026.02.02
12:22:39
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.17745 OF 2025
Sandhya Ajay Awate ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.17713 OF 2025
Sachin Dewaji Chaure ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40370 OF 2025
Anagha Vijay Malkapurkar ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40372 OF 2025
Pandit Tulshiram Yewale ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40376 OF 2025
Shital Abhishek Patil ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40710 OF 2025
Pundlik Narayanrao Ghate ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2026 14:15:28 :::
##PAGE2##904.WP-17745-2025.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40711 OF 2025
Sandeep Nilkanthrao Zade ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40712 OF 2025
Sandeep Wamanrao Matey ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.153 OF 2026
Ravindra Pandit Patil ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40884 OF 2025
Ratan Ramchandra Kamble ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.40887 OF 2025
Ranjana Jitendra Mahajan ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
----
Mr. Avinash Belge for the Petitioner in all Petitions.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. GP for the Respondent – State in
WP/17745/2025.
Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent – State in
WP/17713/2025.
Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2026 14:15:28 :::
##PAGE3##904.WP-17745-2025.odt
Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for the Respondent – State in
WP(st)/40370/2025.
Mr. Aditya Deolekar, AGP for the Respondent – State in
WP(st)/40372/2025.
Mr. Vijay Badgujar, AGP for the Respondent – State in
WP(st)/40376/2025.
Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP for the Respondent – State in
WP(st)/40710/2025.
Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for the Respondent – State in
WP(st)/40711/2025.
Ms. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for the Respondent – State in
WP(st)/40712/2025.
Mr. Karan Thorat, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent – State in
WP/153/2026.
Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP for the Respondent – State in
WP(st)/40884/2025.
Ms. N.M. Mehra, AGP for the Respondent – State in
WP(st)/40887/2025.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent No.4 in all Petitions.
Mr. Aadesh V. Konde-Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Sainath S. Garade,
Ms. Shruti P. Pokale and Mr. Yogesh A. Sakale i/b. Mr. Sangram
Desai for Respondent Nos.5 and 6.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 30th JANUARY, 2026
P.C. :-
1. These matters were heard on 28th January 2026,
29th January, 2026 and today.
2. An innocuous prayer has been put forth by the
Petitioners in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 15th July,
Gauri Gaekwad 3 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2026 14:15:28 :::
##PAGE4##904.WP-17745-2025.odt
2025 delivered in Writ Petition No.14685 of 2024 (Babasaheb
Dyanoba Garje v/s. Chaudhary Atar Singh Yadav Memorial
Education Trust and Ors.) along with other connected matters. In the
said judgment, this Court concluded that the orders passed by the
Grievance Committee, unless challenged by the aggrieved parties
and the matter being sub-judice, are required to be implemented by
the Management. If such orders are not implemented, the University
would be obliged to exercise its powers under Statute No.1 of 2019,
namely “The Maharashtra Public Universities (Penalties to be
imposed upon Erring Affiliated Colleges/Recognized Institutions)
Uniform Statutes, 2018” (hereinafter referred to as “the Penalties
Uniform Statutes”).
3. As such, if the Management has challenged the
