Bombay High Court
SHAHIN FATEMA MOHSIN AHMED AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
Employees who have worked six months or more in the last year up to their superannuation are entitled to the annual increment and the corresponding recalculated pensionary benefits.
Summary
The petitioners, retired employees of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation, sought a notional annual increment and recalculation of their pension benefits under Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, claiming they had served at least six months in the year preceding their superannuation on 30 June. The Court examined prior judgments, including its own 2022 decision in Balaji Manikrao Biradar v. State of Maharashtra and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Director (ADMN. & HR) KPTCL v. V.C.P. Mundinamani (AIR 2023 SC 1956), which held that an employee who retires on 30 June is deemed to have earned the annual increment. The Court affirmed that any employee who has worked six months or more in the last year is entitled to the increment, which must be factored into the calculation of the last drawn salary and consequent pension. Accordingly, the petition was partly allowed, directing the Municipal Corporation to pay the difference in pensionary benefits, recalculate pensions including the increment, and settle any arrears within 90 days, without interest. The order clarified the applicability of Rule 10 to retired employees and reinforced the jurisprudence on earned increments at superannuation.
Issues considered
- Whether an employee who superannuates on 30 June is entitled to the annual increment under Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009.
- Whether pension benefits must be recalculated to include the earned annual increment.
- Whether interest is payable on arrears of pensionary benefits.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 — s. Rule 10
Subjects
- annual increment
- pension recalculation
- retirement benefits
- Rule 10
- Maharashtra Civil Services
- superannuation
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:44049-DB
1 58-WP-12398-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12398 OF 2026
SHAHIN FATEMA MOHSIN AHMED AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
...
Mr. Shivkumar K. Mathpati, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondents/State
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. By this petition, the petitioners seek directions to the
respondent Municipal Corporation to grant them notional / annual
increment which was due on 01 st July i.e. after their retirement, as
they have served with good conduct for more than six months in a
year. Further direction is sought to recalculate their retirement
benefits by including annual increment and all the consequential
service benefits.
2. Learned advocate for petitioners submits that the
petitioners are in fact seeking the benefit of Rule 10 of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009.
3. The issue raised by these petitioners is no longer res
integra. Under the 6th Pay Commission, the year for accounting the
annual increments is from 1st July up to the 30th day of June of the
SVH
2 58-WP-12398-26.odt
next year. The issue as to whether a candidate would be entitled for
such increment if he/she superannuates on 30 th June, was dealt with
by several Courts.
4. The judgment dated 4th May, 2022 delivered by this
Court in Writ Petition No. 14632 of 2021 [Balaji Manikrao Biradar vs.
State of Maharashtra & Others], led to the conclusion that since this
increment is not an advance increment, but is an increment which is
payable after completing one year of employment, notwithstanding
that a candidate superannuates after office hours on 30 th June, he is
deemed to have earned the annual increment and, therefore, the
increment is payable.
5. Several orders/judgments delivered by this Court were
assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same have been
sustained. A large bunch of cases were taken up for adjudication by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director (ADMN. and HR) KPTCL
vs. V. C. P. Mundinamani, reported in AIR 2023 SC 1956 and it
was concluded that the said increment is earned by an employee for
working over one year and hence, the employee is entitled to an
increment even if he/she retires on 30th June of a particular year.
6. Insofar as cases wherein an employee may have worked
for a lessor duration during one year, Rule 10 of the Maharashtra
Civil Services (Revised Pay), Rules, 2009 would cover cases of
employees who have worked for six months and above in the
revised pay structure as on 1st July, and would also be entitled for
SVH
3 58-WP-12398-26.odt
the increment. All those petitioners who have worked for six months
and above in a particular year, would be entitled for the benefits of
the annual increment and their retirement dues would be calculated
by reckoning such increment while calculating their last drawn
wages.
7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is partly allowed
with following directions:-
(a) The petitioners would be entitled for monetary
benefits/difference of pensionary benefits as per the actuals
w.e.f. from their respective dates of superannuation,
provided they have worked for 6 months or more in the last
year up to their superannuation.
(b) The pensionary benefits of the petitioners would be
recalculated by including the annual increment in their last
drawn salary prior to their superannuation and such
recalculated pensionary benefits shall be payable to them.
(c) Arrears if any, shall be paid to them within a period of 90
days. Many of the petitioners have approached belatedly
before this Court and, therefore, akin to the orders passed
in several matters, they would be not entitled for the
interest component.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
SVH
Checking your session…