WP/8659/2026 of DATTATRAYA RAJARAM MATHANE AND OTHERS. Vs THE STATE OF MAHA., THR. ITS SECY. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT. AND ORS. on 15 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.8659 OF 2026

[Dattatraya Rajaram Mathane and others .vs. The State of Maharashtra and others]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri. S. B. Sontakke, Advocate for Petitioners.

Ms. S. S. Jachak, Addl. G. P. for Respondents/State.

CORAM

: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND

RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

DATED

: 15

th OCTOBER, 2026.

1.

Heard Shri. S. B. Sontakke, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. S. S. Jachak, learned Addl. G. P. for the respondents/State.

2.

The petitioners are the retired employees of the respondents. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to grant one notional/annual increment which became due on 1st of July immediately after retirement of the petitioners by including said increment in their last pay drawn and to revise their pay fixation accordingly. The aforesaid issue as regards grant of one notional/ annual increment which became due on 1st of July immediately after retirement is no longer res integra and is covered by judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and by catena of judgments passed by this Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL Versus C.P.Mundinamani [AIR 2023 SC

1956] has granted such benefit of notional/annual increment to the 2026:BHC-NAG:13982-DB

employees who were similarly situated with the petitioners. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.15662/2026 had held thus in its judgment dated 18.03.2026:

“4.

The issue raised by these Petitioners is no longer res integra. Under the 6th Pay Commission, the year for accounting the annual increments is from 1 July up to the 30th day of June of the next year. The issue as to whether a candidate would be entitled for such increment if he/she superannuates on 30th June, was dealt with by several Courts.

5.

By a judgment dated 4th May, 2022 delivered in Writ Petition No.14632 of 2021 at Aurangabad in Balaji Manikrao Biradar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., led to the conclusion that since this increment is not an advance increment, but is an increment which is payable after completing one year of employment, notwithstanding that a candidate superannuates after office hours on 30th June, he is deemed to have earned the annual increment and, therefore, the increment is payable.

6.

Several orders/judgments delivered by this Court were assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same have been sustained. A large bunch of cases were taken up for adjudication by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director (ADMN. and HR) KPTCL vs. V. C. P. Mundinamani", and it was concluded that the said increment is earned by an employee for working over one year and hence, the employee is entitled to an increment even if he/she retires on 30th June of a particular year.

7.

Insofar as cases wherein an employee may have worked for a lessor duration during one year, Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay), Rules, 2009 would cover cases of employees who have worked for six months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st July, and would also be entitled for the increment. All those Petitioners who have worked for six months and above in a particular year, would be entitled for the benefits of the annual increment and their retirement dues would be calculated by reckoning such increment while calculating their last drawn wages.”

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners before this Court are exactly identical in situation to the petitioners who were before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.

The petitioners are entitled for monetary benefits/difference of pensionery benefits from their date of superannuation because they have worked for six months or more in the last year up to their superannuation.

4.

The learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents-State, so far as pronouncement of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court so also by the Coordinate Bench of this Court is concerned, admits the aforesaid legal position. However, so far as entitlement of the present petitioners is concerned, the learned Additional Government Pleader submits that it needs to be verified by the respondents before granting such benefits.

5.

A perusal of the present writ petition reveals that the petitioners have not raised such claim before the respondents and consequentially such claims are not yet verified by the respondents. In view of the above, we direct the respondents to treat the present writ petition as a representation made by the petitioners claiming such benefits. The petitioners undertake to produce the copy of the present writ petition before the respondent authorities competent to adjudicate such claim within a period of two weeks from today.

6.

In view of the above, we dispose of the present writ petition as per the following order: