WP/9572/2026 of SANTOSH S/O DADUJI GAWALI AND ORS. Vs THE STATE OF MAH. THR. ITS SEC. EDUCATION DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. on 5 November 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 9572/2026

(Santosh s/o Daduji Gawali & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)

__________________________________________________________________________

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. S.D. Chopde, Counsel for the petitioners.

Ms. K.H. Bhondge, A.G.P. for the respondents/State.

.....

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND

NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.

NOVEMBER 5, 2026

Heard.

The petitioners are retired employees of Zilla Parishad - Wardha. Their case is that in the year of retirement, they had rendered service for more than six months and, therefore, are entitled for annual increment in terms of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 (“Rules of 2009”).

The petitioners are relying upon a judgment of this Court in Sahebrao Baliram Ahire and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. [Writ Petition No.15662/2025, decided on 18.03.2026], where the Division Bench, at Principal Seat, has considered an identical issue. It referred to various provisions, including Rule 10 of the Rules of 2009, and held thus :

“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 1st July up to the 30th day of June of the next year. The issue as to whether a candidate would be entitled for such 2026:BHC-NAG:15131-DB

increment if he/she superannuates on 30 th 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.”

Thus, the Court, taking aid of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2009, held that where the employee has worked for more than six months in the revised pay structure as on 1st July, would be entitled for the annual increment, and their retirement dues would be calculated by reckoning such increment while calculating their last drawn wages.

The judgment of the Co-Ordinate Bench

being binding precedent, we do not find any reason to not extend such benefit to the petitioners before us. The learned A.G.P., however, submits that the State Government has filed application seeking review of the said judgment, and accordingly, makes request to keep the matter in abeyance and/or not to grant relief based on the said judgment.

We inquired with the learned A.G.P. as to the status of the review application. He submits that the review application is filed on 10.09.2026 being Stamp No.27050/2026. Thus, it appears that the State Government has not taken effective steps either to get the application registered or to obtain the interim relief.

That being so, we propose to pass the

following order that would protect the interest of the petitioners as well as respondents :