“They Render Full-Time Work, They Deserve Full-Time Rights”: Bombay HC Rejects Regularization but Grants Pay Parity to Special Assistant Public Prosecutors
Kiran Raj
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, through a Division Bench comprising Justice S. G. Mehare and Justice Shailesh P. Brahme, delivered a judgment on multiple writ petitions filed by Special Assistant Public Prosecutors (Spl. A.P.Ps.) from Maharashtra. The court granted limited relief by directing the State to grant pay parity and certain service benefits equivalent to Assistant Public Prosecutors (A.P.Ps.) appointed under Section 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), while rejecting the petitioners' demand for regularization and absorption into government service.
The Bench stated, “petitioners are rendering identical work as like A.P.Ps. appointed U/Sec. 25(1) of the Cr. P. C. They are rendering full time job. There is no dispute about their qualification and capability.”
The petitioners were appointed under Section 25(3) of the CrPC by District Magistrates from 2006 to 2015 following directions issued by the State of Maharashtra, as part of the response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in S. B. Shahane v. State of Maharashtra. Despite performing duties equivalent to A.P.Ps. under Section 25(1), they remained on contractual honorarium-based arrangements and were not granted the benefits of regular government service under the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules.
The petitions challenged several government resolutions and administrative orders, including:
- The Government Resolution dated 28 May 2013 creating 299 A.P.P. posts and ordering discontinuation of Spl. A.P.Ps.
- The District Magistrate’s order dated 10 November 2014 removing certain Spl. A.P.Ps. due to low conviction rates.
- The Government Resolution dated 12 May 2015 forming a new selection committee under Section 25(3).
- The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) advertisement dated 4 July 2015 for A.P.P recruitment.
- A circular dated 31 October 2018 disbanding existing Spl. A.P.P. panels.
- Multiple petitions including Writ Petition No. 3084 of 2016 were heard together.
The petitioners contended they performed prosecutorial functions on par with A.P.Ps. under Section 25(1) CrPC but were paid a lower honorarium without service protections. They submitted that the nature of their appointments left them unable to undertake private practice.
The court recorded, “due to heavy burden of work and engagement of the petitioners for entire day, it is not possible for them to accept any civil work or private work.”
They relied on judgments including Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and Sachin Dhawale v. State of Maharashtra to challenge the lack of parity.
The State argued that Spl. A.P.Ps. were temporary appointees to meet exigencies and were not selected through MPSC or against sanctioned posts. The State referenced recruitment rules under Article 309 of the Constitution applicable to regular A.P.Ps.
The Bench noted the argument that, “appointments under Section 25(3) of the Cr. P. C. are to meet out the exigency and that is not a regular employment.”
The court examined the dismissal of earlier Original Applications Nos. 618 of 2014 and 149 of 2015 by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 9 March 2016 but proceeded to examine the writ petitions based on the Marathwada Sarva Shramik Sangathan ruling.
The court conducted a comparative analysis of A.P.Ps. under Section 25(1) CrPC and Spl. A.P.Ps. under Section 25(3). It found formal differences in recruitment methods, service conditions, and tenure but recorded that the duties performed were comparable.
It observed, “there is no reasonable explanation for difference in the service benefits awarded to the petitioners and the A.P.Ps. appointed U/Sec. 25(1).”
The judgment noted that while the MPSC conducted recruitment in 2022 for 547 posts, 95 vacancies remained as of January 17, 2025. The court also took note of pending writ petitions (W.P. No. 7228/2024 and connected cases) by unsuccessful MPSC candidates and interim relief allowing conditional appointments.
The Bench recorded that the petitioners continued providing prosecutorial services for over a decade under temporary arrangements. The court noted, “they were not treated to be regular employees of the State Government...despite extracting services like a full timer.”
The court rejected the claim for regularization and absorption. However, it partially allowed the claim for parity in pay and service benefits.
The Division Bench first rejected the petitioners’ demand for regularization and absorption into government service, stating, “The claim of all the petitioners of regularization and absorption is rejected.” However, the court allowed the plea for parity in pay and service benefits, recording, “The claim of the petitioners for parity in the scale and service benefits stands partly allowed.”
The court directed the respondents to revise the fee structure for Spl. A.P.Ps., noting, “The respondents shall enhance the fees structure/honorarium of Spl. A.P.Ps. within a period of two (02) months from today which may be commensurate with the basic pay drawn by A.P.P. and disburse the payment accordingly.”
The Bench further instructed the State to process arrears, recording, “They shall also disburse arrears of the petitioners by conducting objective scrutiny of the claims, if submitted by individual petitioners within three (03) months from the date of submission of the claims.”
Additionally, the Bench quashed a specific removal order against some Spl. A.P.Ps., holding, “Order dated 10.11.2014 is quashed and set aside.”
The court, however, dismissed the petitions in part, holding, “The writ petitions are dismissed to the extent of challenge to the Government Resolutions dated 28.05.2013 and 12.05.2015.”
The judgment also modified an earlier Tribunal decision, stating, “Judgment and order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal stands modified in above terms.”
Finally, the Bench concluded, “Rule is partly made absolute in above terms,” and directed, “There shall be no order as to costs.” The court disposed of a related civil application, noting, “The Civil Application No. 3384 of 2016 stands disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Advocate A. N. Nagargoje
For the Intervenors: Advocate Avinash Deshmukh
For the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader Neha Kamble with Government Pleader A. B. Girase for the State of Maharashtra and other respondents
Case Title: Sudhir Arjunrao Bansode & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AUG:8223-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3084 of 2016 (with connected petitions)
Bench: Justice S. G. Mehare and Justice Shailesh P. Brahme
[Read/Download order]
