#Government Resolution

A later government resolution cannot cut short the retirement age already granted to an associate professor, preserving the employee’s accrued service right. The Bombay High Court held that the retirement age fixed at 62 under the earlier rule remains enforceable despite a 2025 order seeking retirement at 60. This safeguards all government employees whose service terms were fixed before any subsequent amendment.

Bombay High Court ruled that a disciplinary suspension must end after three months if no charge-sheet or reasoned order is served, ordering the reinstatement of two senior academicians. The decision enforces the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 and the 2025 State resolution, affecting all government employees facing suspension.

Bombay HC rejects non-teaching staff claim for two additional increments under GR 30/04/1984, holding the classification between teachers and non-teaching staff as reasonable under Article 226. The ruling clarifies that the policy benefits under the GR are limited to teachers only.

Bombay HC directs Maharashtra government to decide Vairag Taluka's tahsil declaration proposal within three weeks, emphasizing strict adherence to prescribed criteria and natural justice principles. The ruling underscores executive accountability in administrative reforms affecting local governance structures.

Bombay High Court directs Maharashtra to establish a State Level Grievance Redressal Committee under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, to address rampant illegal land allotments and pending grievances of project-affected persons (PAPs). The ruling mandates uniform criteria for land allotments to prevent arbitrariness and ensure statutory compliance.

The Bombay High Court ruled that non-teaching staff in aided schools are entitled to second-time Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) benefits retrospectively, striking down a discriminatory government resolution. The court directed compliance within six months, reinforcing equal treatment under service law for all staff categories.

Bombay High Court rules that families of government employees who died due to COVID-19 while performing public-facing duties are entitled to Rs. 50 lakh ex-gratia compensation, regardless of uncommunicated orders. The Court also directed reconsideration of compassionate appointments, reinforcing that procedural lapses cannot deny statutory benefits.

Bombay High Court reinforces that government employees absorbed into Zilla Parishad service before the 01.11.2005 cut-off date are entitled to Old Pension Scheme benefits, quashing orders that denied such rights. The ruling underscores the binding nature of the cut-off date for pension eligibility under administrative law.

Bombay High Court rules that denying pension benefits to retired teachers on financial grounds, while granting them to similarly situated employees, constitutes hostile discrimination. The judgment mandates equal treatment under the Pension-Cum-Gratuity Scheme, reinforcing that administrative convenience cannot override constitutional equality.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that students enrolled in one-year Diploma in 2D Animation courses through Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University are entitled to state scholarships under existing SC/ST welfare resolutions, affirming that distance education does not disqualify beneficiaries. This sets a critical precedent for vocational and creative arts students in open learning systems seeking equitable access to government aid.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that when a government authority identifies procedural deficiencies in a teacher's appointment proposal but the candidate has substantially complied with all legal requirements, the court may directly direct compliance rather than remanding the matter. This empowers judicial intervention to prevent undue delay in public service appointments and protects candidates from bureaucratic inertia, setting a precedent for similar cases involving government recruitment processes.

Bombay High Court reaffirms that daily wagers must strictly prove 240 days of continuous work in a calendar year with documentary evidence like muster rolls to claim permanency benefits under the Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996. The ruling underscores the burden of proof on workers and limits arbitrary permanency claims in public employment.

The Bombay High Court ruled that a retired employee’s retiral benefits cannot be denied merely because his Scheduled Tribe certificate was invalidated after service - especially when he was never served the cancellation order. This upholds natural justice in administrative actions and ensures that procedural lapses by the state do not deprive retirees of statutorily guaranteed benefits under Government Resolution 14.12.2022.

Bombay High Court mandates administrative compliance with Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 29.02.2024, ensuring tribal and PESA area employees receive one-step promotional pay scale benefits. The ruling directs payment of arrears and sets strict timelines for scrutiny, impacting Zilla Parishad employees across Maharashtra.

Bombay HC Aurangabad Bench mandates the Maharashtra State Agricultural Prices Commission to actively recommend the difference between Central and State Minimum Support Prices (MSP) under GR 23/04/2015, transforming its advisory role into a binding obligation. This ruling ensures farmers receive the higher MSP, addressing systemic gaps in agricultural pricing policies and holding state bodies accountable for implementation.