Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Through its Additional Chief Secretary General Administration DepartmentversusPralhad Lobhaji Bhalerao
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal’s decision to grant the employee the advance increments.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra challenged a Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order that quashed a departmental refusal to grant advance increments to employee Pralhad Bhalerao. The State argued that a pending departmental enquiry and a reprimand under Government Resolution 14.12.2006, clause 8(b), barred the employee from such increments. The Tribunal held that the reprimand for a minor procedural lapse was disproportionate to withhold increments, noting the employee’s eligibility predated the enquiry and that the enquiry’s prolonged pendency could not justify denial. The High Court examined the arguments and concluded that the Tribunal’s reasoning was sound. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the Tribunal’s order granting the increments in place.
Issues considered
- Whether a pending departmental enquiry and a reprimand for a minor infraction disqualify an employee from entitlement to advance increments under the service rules.
- Whether Government Resolution dated 14.12.2006, clause 8(b) is applicable to deny advance increments in such circumstances.
- Whether the High Court can set aside the Tribunal’s order under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
Subjects
- advance increment
- departmental enquiry
- reprimand
- government resolution
- service law
- administrative law
- writ petition
- high court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:6111-DB
13 WRIT PETITION NO. 1147 OF 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
13 WRIT PETITION NO. 1147 OF 2026
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Additional Chief Secretary,
General Administration Department
VERSUS
Pralhad Lobhaji Bhalerao
…
• Mr. S. R. Wakale, AGP for the State
…
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 02.02.2026
PER COURT:
. Heard.
2. By the present petition, the State of Maharashtra challenges
the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad, in Original Application No.
1049 of 2019, whereby the application filed by the employee -
Pralhad S/o Lobhaji Bhalerao is allowed and order dated 13.11.2018
passed by the Assistant Superintending Engineer, Nanded Irrigation
Circle, refusing to grant advance increment in favour of the applicant,
was quashed and set aside. The State was directed to grant first advance
increment w.e.f. 01.10.2000 and second advance increment w.e.f.
ksk/ 1/3
13 WRIT PETITION NO. 1147 OF 2026
01.10.2005 along with arrears and consequential benefits within two
months from the date of the order.
3. It is the contention of the State that the respondent was
employed as Junior Engineer from 1982 and thereafter became Sectional
Engineer from 01.04.1998 and Sub-Divisional Officer from 13.12.2018
and has been working in Irrigation/Water Resources Department. It is
stated that two departmental enquiries were pending against the
employee. He was acquitted from one of the departmental enquiry on
24.10.2011 and the another departmental enquiry, which was initiated
on 13.04.2010, resulted in a reprimand by order dated 25.04.2012.
4. It is submitted that in view of Government Resolution dated
14.12.2006, particularly clause 8(b), wherever a departmental enquiry is
pending against an employee and he is found guilty, he would not be
entitled to any advance increment. Relying upon the said Government
Resolution, it is submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is
erroneous.
5. We have perused order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal
has observed that in the criminal case, the employee was acquitted. In
the departmental enquiry, the original applicant was held guilty for an
extremely minor infraction, namely that he had not put the date below
his signature, and as such he was merely reprimanded. On mere
ksk/ 2/3
13 WRIT PETITION NO. 1147 OF 2026
reprimand, the Tribunal held that withholding of the increment would be
disproportionate.
6. The Tribunal has further observed that the employee had
become eligible for the advance increment much prior to the initiation of
the departmental enquiry. The advance increments relate to the periods
1995-2000 and 2001-2005. The second incident for which the employee
was held responsible is of the year 2000 to 2001.
7. The Tribunal has also observed that pendency of the
departmental enquiry, especially when prolonged over a decade, cannot
be a valid justification to deny advance increments. The Tribunal having
considered the trivial nature of the charge has concluded that the
increments ought not to have been withheld.
8. Considering this factual matrix of the matter, exercise of
powers under Article 226 / 227 would not be warranted. The petition is
accordingly dismissed.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.] [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
ksk/ 3/3
Checking your session…