AVINASH VITHAL KHIRSAGAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:44541-DB


                                              1                  73-WP-12472-26.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            73 WRIT PETITION NO. 12472 OF 2026

                                    SMT. AMBIKA SANJIV PUJARI
                                              VERSUS
              STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND
                                              OTHERS
                                                 ...
              Mr. Sudhir D. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondents/State
                                                 …
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 12905 OF 2026

                                    SMT. VIMAL NAMDEV SHELKE
                                              VERSUS
              STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND
                                              OTHERS
                                                 ...
              Mr. Sudhir D. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. M. K. Goyanka, AGP for Respondents/State
                                                 …
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 12937 OF 2026

                           ASHOK SHANKARRAO KHAIRE AND OTHERS
                                             VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                               ...
              Mr. Kishor D. Khade, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondents/State
                                               …
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 8124 OF 2026

                          SHANKAR GANPATRAO BIRADAR AND OTHERS
                                            VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                              ...
              Mr. Amol G. Vasmatkar, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondents/State
              Mr. Shamsundar B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6
                                              …
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 12938 OF 2026

                           AVINASH VITHAL KHIRSAGAR AND OTHERS
                                          VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS


              SVH
                                  2                    73-WP-12472-26.odt


                                  ...
Mr. Rahul S. Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N.D. Batule, AGP for Respondents/State
                                  ...

                        CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                         DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :

1.            Indisputably, the issue raised in these petitions is

squarely covered by the decision of this Court at Principal Seat 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

reads 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.

          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



SVH
                              3                     73-WP-12472-26.odt


      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 he 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 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


SVH
                                  4                     73-WP-12472-26.odt


          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 / 03.07.2009 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 24.08.2017 would only have prospective
          effect.”

2.         This Court, therefore, held that it is now well settled

position that the scheme of grant of advance increments was

discontinued for the first time by the Government Resolution dated


SVH
                                      5                      73-WP-12472-26.odt


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

prospectively.

3.           In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the Writ Petitions

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 outstanding work, prior to

24/08/2017. Since the Petitioners are not claiming interest, all the

consequential benefits be calculated by adding up the said advance

increments. Since some of the Petitioners are superannuated, all

consequential benefits post recalculation be paid to them within a

period of 90 days.



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




SVH