Bombay High Court: While considering a petition seeking grant of notional annual increment falling due on 1 July after superannuation and consequential revision of retirement benefits, the Division Bench of Milind N. Jadhav and Nandesh S. Deshpande, JJ., held that annual increment is an earned benefit accruing on account of service rendered during the relevant period and that employees who had completed more than six months of qualifying service before retirement were entitled to notional annual increment while determining pensionary benefits.
Also Read: Employees’ Pension Scheme, 2026: Key Changes
Background
The petitioners sought directions against the forest authorities concerned for grant of notional or annual increment which became due on 1 July after their retirement and for recalculation of retirement and pensionary benefits by taking such increment into consideration. According to the petitioners, they had served for more than six months from the date of the last annual increment granted to them and, therefore, had earned the increment despite retiring before the increment date.
Analysis
The Court noted that after implementation of the 6th Pay Commission, the State was directed to grant annual increment w.e.f. 1st July of every year, i.e. period of grant of annual increment must be considered based on past service rendered by employee. A Notification dated 22 April 2009 was issued under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 (2009 Rules), which came into force from 1 January 2006, provided under Rule 10 that employees completing six months or more of service as on 1 July would be eligible for annual increment. The Court also referred to Government Resolution dated 26 December 2011 stating that employees who had served for more than six months would be entitled to annual increment even if they had retired before the date of grant of annual increment or before 1 July of the year concerned. The Court further noted that there was no dispute regarding the petitioners’ appointments, promotions, or superannuation and that they had rendered the requisite qualifying service after the last annual increment granted to them.
The Court relied on Balaji Manikrao Biradar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 12167, wherein it was observed that since the increment is not an advance increment but is an increment which is payable after completing one year of employment, and notwithstanding that if the employee is superannuated having served for more than six months, then he is deemed to have earned the annual increment and therefore the increment is payable.
The Court also referred to KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani, (2023) 14 SCC 411, wherein the Supreme Court concluded that annual increment is earned by an employee for working over in that year and he is entitled to it even if he or she retired on 30 June of a particular year.
The Court observed that Rule 10 of the 2009 Rules comes to the aid of those employees who have worked for six months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1 July and recognises their entitlement to annual increment. The Court further observed that on an overall consideration, all employees who had worked for six months and above in a particular year would be entitled to the benefit of annual increment. The Court noted that such increment necessarily had to be reckoned while determining the last drawn wages and while computing retiral and pensionary benefits.
The Court also noted that the petition was an omnibus petition involving several employees and, therefore, eligibility in each case would have to be verified individually by the authorities concerned. The Court directed the forest authorities to undertake the exercise on a case-to-case basis before granting the benefit.
The Court expressed concern regarding what it described as tremendous laxity on the part of Forest Department Administration to comply with the orders passed by this Court, and therefore, directed that the exercise of recalculation would be undertaken under the guidance of the Chief Conservator of Forest (T), Kolhapur Circle, and the Court cautioned that if there would be any delay, the authorities would be held directly responsible in contempt of this order passed by the Court.
Decision
Allowing the petition partly, the Court held that those petitioners who had worked for six months or more in the last year up to the date of their superannuation would be entitled to monetary and pensionary benefits arising from inclusion of the annual increment in their last drawn salary. The Court directed recalculation of pensionary benefits and payment of arrears, if any, within two months. Of the petitioners before the Court, Petitioner Nos. 1 to 15 were held entitled to the monetary and pensionary benefits arising from the increment, subject to each having completed six months or more of qualifying service up to the date of their respective superannuation. However, considering that many petitioners had approached the Court belatedly, the Court held that they would not be entitled to interest on the arrears.
[Jyotiram Maruti Tupe v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition (ST.) No. 6541 of 2026, decided on 6-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Abhishek Ingale i/b Pankajsinh A. Deshmukh with Murlidhar Kharat, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP.
