Bombay High Court

JAYVANT BHAUSAHEB GAIKWAD AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Government Resolution dated 24‑08‑2017 applies prospectively and does not retrospectively deny advance increments.

Summary

The petitioners, who had superannuated, sought the grant of advance increments that were allegedly denied after the Government Resolution dated 24‑08‑2017. The issue was whether the resolution operated retrospectively, denying benefits accrued before its date, or only prospectively. The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Writ Petition No. 17112/2025, which held that the resolution would apply prospectively. Accordingly, the Court declared that the resolution is prospective and directed the authorities to verify each petitioner’s eligibility for advance increments earned before 24‑08‑2017. Eligible petitioners are to be granted the increments and all consequential benefits, to be paid within 90 days, without any interest. The writ petitions were therefore disposed of with the above declaration.

Issues considered

Whether the Government Resolution dated 24‑08‑2017 operates retrospectively to deny advance increments earned before that date
Whether the petitioners are entitled to consequential benefits calculated on the basis of such advance increments

Subjects

advance increments
prospective application
government resolution
pay fixation
6th Pay Commission
superannuation
interest
verification

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40094-DB
                                                1                     31 GROUP.doc



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                        31 WRIT PETITION NO. 11013 OF 2026

                  AVINASH RAMKISAN VIDHATE AND OTHERS
                                VERSUS
        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                          ...

               Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Suchita Satish Upadhyay
                   AGP for Respondent/State : Ms. Neha B. Kamble
                                            …
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 11528 OF 2026
                   SUDHIR VITTHALRAO GAWADE AND OTHERS
                                            VS.
                   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                            …
               Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Suchita Satish Upadhyay
                     AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. N.S. Tekale
                                            …
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 11529 OF 2026

                 JAYVANT BHAUSAHEB GAIKWAD AND OTHERS
                                           VS.
        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                           …
              Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Suchita Satish Upadhyay
                    AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. N.D. Batule
                                           …
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 11577 OF 2026
                  DEVIDAS JANARDHAN BODKHE AND OTHERS
                                          VS.
        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                           …
              Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Suchita Satish Upadhyay
                    AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.R. Wakale
                                  2                          31 GROUP.doc



                              CORAM      : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                           ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                DATE     : 01.09.2026

PER COURT :
.        Writ Petition Nos. 11528 of 2026, 11529 of 2026 and 11577 of
2026 are not on Board. Upon mentioning, taken on Board.

2.      Undisputedly, the issue raised in these petitions is squarely covered
by the decision of this Court (Coram : Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D.
Bhobe, JJ.) in writ petition No.17112/2025 and connected writ petitions,
dated 16.12.2025. In the said judgment this Court in paragraph No.4 has
observed thus :
    “4. In various judgments of this Court, it was consistently
        held that the Government Resolution dated 24/08/2017,
        would operate prospectively and would not have the
        effect of retrospective denial of advance increments. The
        State Government and various Zilla Parishads had filed
        Review Petitions seeking review of various orders passed
        by this Court. It was inter-alia sought to be contended in
        the said review petitions that, even though the ultimate
        decision for stoppage of the scheme for advance
        increments might have been taken on 24/08/2017, it was
        earlier directed by way of a Circular dated 03/07/2009, to
        undertake the exercise of pay fixation as per the 6 th Pay
        Commission Pay scales, without taking into consideration
        the advance increments.”
3.            For the reasons stated in the said decision these writ petitions
are disposed of with the declaration that the G.R. dated 24 th August, 2017
would apply prospectively. The concerned Authorities would carry out a
verification exercise and assess as to which of the Petitioners have been
held entitled for the grant of advanced increments after having been
declared to have performed outstanding/excellent work, prior to
                                3                         31 GROUP.doc



24.8.2017. Those Petitioners who are found eligible, would be granted the
said benefits and all consequential benefits would be calculated by adding
up the advanced increments. As all the Petitioners have superannuated, all
consequential benefits post recalculation, would be paid to them within
90 days. No interest is granted on the amounts payable.




( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. )               ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. )



vsj..

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…