Bombay High Court: In a writ petition seeking grant of notional/annual increment due on 1 July after retirement and consequential recalculation of retirement benefits, the Division Bench of Milind N. Jadhav and Nandesh S. Deshpande, JJ., held that employees who had served for more than 6 months from the last date of annual increment were entitled to the benefit of annual increment. The Court noted that under Rule 10, Maharashtra Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 (2009 Rules), there is a uniform date of annual increment, i.e. 1 July every year, and employees completing 6 months or more in their service as on 1 July would be eligible for grant of annual increment. The Court further held that such increment had to be reckoned while calculating the employees’ last drawn wages and their retiral benefits.
Background
In the present case, the dispute arose as the petitioners sought a direction to Respondents 3 to 6 to grant notional/annual increment which was due to them on 1 July, i.e. after their date of retirement. The petitioners had admittedly served for more than 6 months in a year in various departments of forest as employees from the last date of granting the earlier annual increment to each one of them. They also sought a direction to recalculate retirement benefit by including annual increment and to pay all the retirement benefits with arrears.
After implementation of the 6th Pay Commission, the State was directed to grant annual increment w.e.f. 1 July of every year, i.e. period of grant of annual increment had to be considered on the basis of past service rendered by employee.
Accordingly, Notification dated 22 April 2009 was issued by the State Government under the 2009 Rules which came into force w.e.f. 1 January 2006. In accordance with Rule 10, 2009 Rules, there had to be a uniform date of annual increment, i.e. 1 July of every year and, in the case of employees completing 6 months or more in their service as on 1 July, they would be eligible for grant of annual increment.
Further, Government Resolution dated 26 December 2011 stated that such employees who had served for more than 6 months would be entitled for annual increment even if they had been retired before the date of grant of annual increment or before 1 July of the year concerned.
Analysis
The Court emphasised that there was no dispute about appointment of the petitioners as forest employees by following the due process of law. It was noted that they had all been promoted in accordance with law and had retired on superannuation and having retired but having served more than 6 months from the last date of annual increment to them, they would therefore be entitled to the benefit of annual increment.
The Court observed that the issue raised by the petitioners was no longer res integra in view of judgment dated 4 May 2022 delivered in Balaji Manikrao Biradar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 12167, at Aurangabad. The Court held that since the increment is not an advance increment but is an increment which is payable after completing 1 year of employment, and notwithstanding that if the employee is superannuated having served for more than 6 months, then he is deemed to have earned the annual increment and therefore the increment is payable.
The Court further observed that orders and judgments delivered by the Court in similarly placed cases were assailed before the Supreme Court and the same have been sustained. Referring to KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani, (2023) 14 SCC 411, the Court noted that the Supreme Court has concluded that such 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 further observed that Rule 10, 2009 Rules comes to the aid of those employees who have worked for 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1 July and even they would be entitled for increment. Thus, on overall conclusion, the Court observed that all those petitioners who have worked for 6 months and above in a particular year would be entitled for the benefit of annual increment and their retiral benefits would be calculated by reckoning such increment while calculating their last drawn wages.
Decision
The Court observed that, in view of the aforesaid observations and findings, there was no impediment in allowing the petition, however subject to following directions. The Court partly allowed the petition.
The Court directed that Petitioners 1 to 15 would be entitled to monetary benefits/difference of pensionary benefits as per actuals w.e.f. their respective dates of superannuation, provided they have worked for 6 months or more in the last year up to the date of their superannuation. Such exercise would have to be undertaken by Respondents 3 to 6 before the grant of annual increment to the eligible petitioners.
The Court noted that since the petitioners had filed omnibus petition, such exercise could not be undertaken by the Court. However, Respondents 3 to 6 were directed to undertake the exercise on case to case basis qua each of the petitioners concerned before the Court. The Court further directed that, for all the petitioners complying with the aforesaid conditions, pensionary benefits be recomputed and calculated by including the annual increment in their last drawn salary prior to their superannuation and such recalculated pensionary benefits shall be payable to the petitioners.
The Court directed that arrears, if any, after recalculation shall be paid over to the eligible petitioners within a period of 2 months from today positively without any delay and extension. The Court observed that it is commonly seen and observed by the Court that there is tremendous laxity on the part of Forest Administration to comply with the orders passed by the Court. In that view of the matter, the Court directed that this direction will be scrupulously followed and, in the event of any delay, the Chief Conservator of Forest (T) shall be held directly responsible in contempt of this order passed by Court.
The Court accordingly directed that the exercise of recalculation will be undertaken by Respondents 3 to 6 under the guidance of the Chief Conservator of Forest (T) forthwith on the basis of server copy of this order and there shall be no delay in complying with the above directions.
The Court further noted that many petitioners in the present group of petition have approached the Court much belatedly. In that view of the matter, the Court held that they shall not be entitled to interest. Accordingly, respondents were directed to revise the petitioners’ retiral benefits and pension accordingly. The Court granted liberty to apply and held that the petition stands allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
[Shivaji Nivrutti Bamane v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition (St.) No. 6552 of 2026, decided on 6-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Abhishek Ingale i/by Pankajsinh A. Deshmukh with Murlidhar Kharat
For the State: Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP
