RAJMOHAMMAD JANMOAMMAD SHAIKH AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:43941-DB


                                                *1*                            12276/2026_wp


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 47 WRIT PETITION NO.12276 OF 2026

                         Rajmohammad Janmoammad Shaikh And Anr
                                           VERSUS
                The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Others
                                              …..
                     Mrs. Suvarna M. Zaware, Advocate for the Petitioners
                       Mrs. S. S. Joshi, AGP for the Respondent – State
                                              …..

                                        CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
                                                ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                        DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026
                P. C. :-

                1.         Indisputably, the issue raised in this petition is squarely

                covered by the decision at Principal Seat of this Court in Writ

                Petition No.12665 of 2025. In the said order, this Court, has

                quoted observations of the Co-ordinate Bench, in the case of

                “State of Maharashtra and Another V/s Rupchand Narayan

                Shinde and Others” in Review Application (Civil) No. 170 of

                2022, which read thus:

                           “12. After having heard learned Counsels at length, we find
                           that the review applicants have not been able to point out
                           any      specific    instructions   issued      prior     to
                           24.08.2017/04.09.2018 for discontinuation of the schemes
                           for grant of advance increments. Government Resolution
                           dated 27.02.2009 and Circular dated 03.07.2009 do not
                           indicate that any final decision was taken for
                           discontinuation of schemes for advance increments. We
                           proceed to examine the Government Resolution dated
                           27.02.2009 and Circular dated 03.07.2009 in details.
                    *2*                            12276/2026_wp




13. Government Resolution dated 27.02.2009 came to be
issued by the State Government essentially for conveying
the decision of the State Government about acceptance or
otherwise of various recommendations made by the Hakim
Committee      constituted    for    implementation     of
recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission. In
Annexure to the said Government Resolution, each
recommendation and decision of the State Government
thereon have been enumerated. So far as the scheme for
advance increment is concerned, the same is to be found at
serial number 27 of the Annexure (para 3.24 of
Committees Report). In that paragraph, the Committee
recommended that for employees / officers rendering
outstanding service, increment @ 4% be awarded instead
of 3% and such increment be granted once in 5 years. It
was further recommended that since increment at higher
rate was being granted, the then existing scheme for grant
of one or two advance increments be discontinued.
However, in the column ‘Decision of State Government’
against para 3.24, remark is made stating that ‘separate
action would be taken by General Administration
Department’. As against various other recommendations,
the remark ‘accepted’ has been made. The recommendation
made in para 3.24 by the Hakim Committee was not
accepted at least on the date of issuance of Government
Resolution dated 27.02.2009 and General Administration
Department was to take decision thereon separately. Thus,
it cannot be inferred that any specific decision was taken
by the State Government on 27.02.2009 for
discontinuation of scheme for grant of advance increment.
Therefore, we do not find that the orders under review
need to be disturbed on the basis of the Government
Resolution dated 27.02.2009.

14. Now, we come to the Circular dated 03.07.2009. By
the said Circular, it was directed that the issue of
discontinuation of scheme for grant of advance increment
was under consideration with the State Government and
that some time was required for taking final decision.
Therefore, it was further directed that temporarily the pay
fixation of the employees in the 6th Pay Commission scales
be made without considering the advance increments.
Thus, the Circular dated 03.07.2009 was clearly issued as a
temporary measure. The said circular did not communicate
                           *3*                              12276/2026_wp


      any decision to the effect that the State Government
      discontinued the scheme for grant of advance increments.
      Therefore, we find that the reliance of Mr. Dixit on the
      Circular dated 03.07.2009 is again of no avail.

      15.    We have carefully gone through the Government
      Resolution dated 24.08.2017 and Circular dated
      04.09.2018. By the Government Resolution dated
      24.08.2017, final decision came to be taken in respect of
      recommendation made by the Hakim Committee in para
      3.24 of its report directing that during the period from
      01.10.2006 to 01.10.2015 when revised pay scale as per
      6th Pay Commission were admissible, the benefit of
      advance increments should not be granted. Thus, the final
      decision on para 3.24 of Committees Report was taken by
      the State Government only on 24.08.2017. However,
      instead of simply directing that the scheme for grant of
      advance increments is discontinued, the State Government
      sought to give retrospective effect to its decision by
      directing that the benefit of such advance increments be
      not given during the period form 01.10.1006 to
      01.10.2015. While issuing such orders having retrospective
      effect, the State Government lost sight of the fact that
      several employees were already granted the benefit of
      advance increments during the relevant period. As we have
      observed earlier, the deliberations for discontinuation of
      the scheme started only on 27.02.2009 / 03.0.2009 and
      prior to that, admittedly, the issue of discontinuation of the
      scheme for grant of advance increment was not even under
      consideration. The instructions for temporarily doing pay
      fixation without advance increments were issued on
      03.07.2009. This means that several employees must have
      already been granted advance increments during the
      period from 01.10.2006 to 03.07.2009. We, therefore, fail
      to comprehend as to how the State Government could have
      issued directions on 24.08.2017 that the benefit of advance
      increments should not be granted from 01.10.2006
      onwards. Even in respect of employees becoming eligible
      for grant of advance increments after 27.02.2009, we do
      not find any error in the view taken by this Court that the
      Government Resolution dated 27.08.2017 would only have
      prospective effect.”


2.   This Court, therefore, held that it is now well settled
                           *4*                         12276/2026_wp


position that the scheme of grant of advance increments was

discontinued for the first time by the Government Resolution,

dated 24/08/2017 and that, such decision would only operate

prospectively.



3.    In view of aforesaid, we dispose of the Writ Petition by

declaring that, the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017

would apply prospectively. The Petitioners are held to be

eligible for grant of advance increments for Most Excellent /

outstanding work, prior to 24.08.2017. Since the Petitioners

are not claiming interest, all consequential benefits be

calculated by adding up the said advance increments. Since

the Petitioners are superannuated, all consequential benefits

post recalculation be paid to them, within 90 days.



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


GGP