Bombay High Court

VANDANA AVINASH JOGI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that the State must verify each petitioner's eligibility for the advanced/additional increment under the 2006 Government Resolution and pay the dues to those eligible, while providing reasoned orders for those deemed ineligible.

Summary

The petitioners sought the grant of advanced/additional increments under the Government Resolution dated 14 December 2006, alleging that they were eligible but had not received the benefits. The State of Maharashtra contended that eligibility needed to be verified. The Court noted that the matter was already decided in Writ Petition No.4150/2026 and applied the same principles. It ordered a verification exercise to determine each petitioner's entitlement and directed payment of dues within eight weeks to those found eligible. For petitioners found ineligible, the Court required a reasoned order within three weeks, allowing them to challenge the decision. The Court also held that petitioners who were eligible under the 2006 resolution but unpaid up to the 24 August 2017 resolution are entitled to the full arrears.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are eligible for the advanced/additional increment under the Government Resolution dated 14 December 2006.
Whether the State is obligated to verify eligibility and pay the increments and arrears to eligible petitioners.
Whether the State must issue reasoned orders for petitioners found ineligible and allow them to seek judicial review.

Subjects

advanced increment
additional increment
government resolution
verification exercise
writ petition
eligibility
arrears
public service

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42672-DB


                                             {1}                      57-wp-12091-2026

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              57 WRIT PETITION NO. 12091 OF 2026

                                Vandana Avinash Jogi And Others
                                            VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Another

              Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioners
              Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for State
              Mr. N.E. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No. 2

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 12441 OF 2026

                            Raghunath Dhondiba Hanumante And Others
                                            VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Another

              Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioners
              Mr. S.R. Wakle, AGP for State
                                             .......

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


                                       DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.   Writ Petition No. 12441 of 2026 is not on board. Upon

              mentioning same is taken on board.


              2.   Indisputably, the issue raised in these petitions is squarely

              covered by the decision of this Court (Coram : Ravindra V. Ghuge and

              Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.4150/2026 and connected

              matter, dated 02.04.2026.
                                     {2}                     57-wp-12091-2026

3.         For the reasons stated in the said decision, we pass the following

order :


     (i)    The Writ Petitions are partly allowed. The Respondents/
            State is at liberty to verify the cases of the Petitioners as
            regards      their    eligibility  for    the    grant     of
            advanced/additional increment in the light of the
            Government Resolution dated 14th           December, 2006.
            Needless to state, those Petitioners, who are found to be
            eligible, would be paid their legal dues within eight weeks
            from today. In the event, some of the Petitioners are
            found to be ineligible, a reasoned order would be passed
            in each case setting out the adverse circumstances and
            such order shall be served upon each of such Petitioners
            within a period of three weeks from the date of the order.


     (ii) We have no hesitation in observing that this Court has
          always directed a verification exercise, if not already
          performed, to be carried out and based on the
          entitlement of the individual Petitioners, payments be
          granted. As such, even in this matter, let the concerned
          Respondents conduct a verification exercise and
          thereafter    make      the     payments     to    those
          candidates/Petitioners, who are found eligible. This
          exercise be completed within eight weeks from today.



     (iii) Needless to state, if any claim of any Petitioners is
           invalidated by the State in so far as their entitlement is
           concerned, a reasoned order in each of such cases be
           passed and the said order be served upon the concerned
           Petitioner within three weeks from the date of it’s
           passing. The Petitioners would then be entitled to
           challenge the said order by availing of a remedy, as is
           permissible in law. Those who are found entitled under
                                  {3}                  57-wp-12091-2026

            the Government Resolution dated 14 th December, 2006
            and were never paid till the date of the Government
            Resolution dated 24th August, 2017, they would be
            entitled for entire arrears.



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




Bhagyawant Punde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…