Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
6 judgments · newest first · showing 1–6
The petitioners challenged the fixation of their one‑step pay (Ekstar) on the ground that it was not in accordance with the recommendations of the 6th and 7th Pay Commissions. They had submitted a detailed representation on 9 March 2026 to the concerned authority, which remained pending. The Court …
The petitioners challenged the fixation of their one‑step pay (Ekstar) under the 6th and 7th Pay Commission recommendations, alleging it was done incorrectly. They had submitted a detailed representation on 20 July 2026 to the concerned authority, which remained pending. The Court noted a prior …
The petitioners, retired government employees, sought direction that they be granted the notional annual increment under Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, and that their pension benefits be recalculated to include such increment. The Court examined whether an …
The petitioners, a large group of retired government employees, sought directions for the State of Maharashtra to grant them the notional annual increment due on 1 July and to recalculate their retirement benefits accordingly. They relied on Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) …
The petitioners, a large group of retired government employees, sought directions that the State of Maharashtra grant them the notional annual increment due on 1 July and recalculate their retirement benefits to include this increment, arguing that they had served at least six months in the relevant …
The petitioners, a group of retired government employees, sought directions that their retirement benefits be recalculated to include the annual increment under Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, arguing that they had served at least six months in the relevant year …
