Bombay High Court
KAILAS SHANTARAM BIRARI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
An employee who retires on or after 30 June and has rendered at least six months of service in the preceding year is deemed to have earned the annual increment under Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, and therefore his/her pensionary benefits must be recalculated to include that increment, without liability for interest on delayed claims.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of retired government employees, sought directions that their retirement benefits be recalculated to include the annual increment under Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, arguing that they had served at least six months in the relevant year before superannuation. The Court noted that under the 6th Pay Commission the accounting year for increments runs from 1 July to 30 June, and that earlier judgments, including Balaji Manikrao Biradar v. State of Maharashtra (2022) and Director (ADMN. & HR) KPTCL v. V.C.P. Mundinamani (AIR 2023 SC 1956), held that an employee retiring on 30 June is deemed to have earned the increment. Applying this precedent, the Court held that all petitioners who had served six months or more in the last year were entitled to the notional increment and that their pensionary benefits must be recomputed accordingly, with arrears payable within 90 days but without interest for belated filings. The writ petitions were therefore partly allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a government employee who retires on or after 30 June is entitled to the annual increment under Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 if he/she has served at least six months in the preceding year.
- Whether retirement benefits should be recalculated to include such earned increment.
- Whether interest is payable on arrears when the claim is filed belatedly.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules — s. Rule 10
Subjects
- annual increment
- retirement benefits
- pension
- Maharashtra Civil Services Rules
- 6th Pay Commission
- superannuation
- interest on arrears
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:45620-DB
{1} 51-wp-12638-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
51 WRIT PETITION NO. 12638 OF 2026
Virsing Barku Gaikwad And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. S.K. Mathpati, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mrs. Saie Joshi, AGP for the State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13134 OF 2026
Balasaheb Sopanrao Niras And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
Mr. S.K. Mathpati, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. M.K. Goyanka, AGP for the State
Mr. A.R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 5
WRIT PETITION NO. 13135 OF 2026
Dadahari Marutirao Dhas And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
Mr. M.S. Karad, Advocate for the Petitioners
Ms. Neha Kamble,AGP for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13136 OF 2026
Pandurang Wamanrao Pawar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
Mr. P.N. Pimpalgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. V. M. Kagne,AGP for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13137 OF 2026
Bhagwanta Shankar Umap And Others
{2} 51-wp-12638-2026
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
Mr. V.P. Narwade, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. B. B.Bhise,AGP for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13138 OF 2026
Chandrakant Keshavrao Damekar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
Mr. S.K. Mathpati, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. N. D. Batule,AGP for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13139 OF 2026
Manish Ramaji Ganvir
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. R.D. Khadap, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs. Saie Joshi, AGP for State
Mr. N.D. Sonavane, Advocate for Respondent No. 6
Mr. S.R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent No. 7
WRIT PETITION NO. 13140 OF 2026
Devidas Dhanaji Jarare
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Prasad Jarare, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr S.K. Tambe, AGP for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13141 OF 2026
Suresh Gopalrao Shete And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Umesh Gite, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for the State
{3} 51-wp-12638-2026
WRIT PETITION NO. 13142 OF 2026
Uttamrao Rakhmaji Kale And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. R.V. Gore, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. M.K. Goyanka, AGP for the State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13143 OF 2026
Sitaram Biraji Ramandwal
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Prasad Jarare , Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. Neha Kamble AGP for the State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13144 OF 2026
Rajabhau Bansi Nagargoje And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Vaibhav Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. V.M. Kagne, AGP for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13146 OF 2026
Kamlakar Venkatrao Kulkarni And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Abhijit G. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. B.B. Bhise, AGP for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13148 OF 2026
Umakant Ishwarappa Khajure And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
{4} 51-wp-12638-2026
Mr. Abhijit G. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. N.D. Batule, AGP for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13149 OF 2026
Salim Mahetab Shaikh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Estling S. Murge, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mrs. Saie Joshi, AGP for the State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13150 OF 2026
Limbaji Barikrao Ikhe And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Abhijit Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13151 OF 2026
Sonopant Shankarrao Kulkarni And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Abhijit Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13152 OF 2026
Hanumant Ananda Sakale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Umesh Gite Babanrao, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Goyanka, AGP for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13153 OF 2026
Deelip Kishanrao Kanse And Others
VERSUS
{5} 51-wp-12638-2026
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Abhijit Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. Neha Kamble, AGP for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13154 OF 2026
Bhaurao Rambhau Bachhav And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Others
...
Mr. S.K. Mathpati, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. V.M. Kagne, AGP for State
Mr. Prashant Nangare, Advocate for Respondents No. 3 to 5
WRIT PETITION NO. 13155 OF 2026
Bhagwan Limbaji Munde And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Secretary And Others
...
Mr. Prasad Jarare, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. B.B. Bhise, AGP for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13156 OF 2026
Kailas Shantaram Birari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Estling Murge, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N.D. Batule, AGP for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13157 OF 2026
Nanarao Baburao Ujnikar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Avinash Khedkar, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mrs. Saie Joshi, AGP for State
{6} 51-wp-12638-2026
WRIT PETITION NO. 13158 OF 2026
Navnath Sahebrao Latpate And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Estling S.Murge , Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13159 OF 2026
Bhagwan Maruti Daund
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. R.V. Gore, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13160 OF 2026
Uttam Narayan Suryawanshi And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. R.V. Gore, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. M.K. Goyanka, AGP for State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13161 OF 2026
Shrirang Ramkrishna Randhe And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Shivaji T. Shelke, Advocate for the Petitioners
Ms. Neha Kamble, AGP for the State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13162 OF 2026
Sadashiv Kisan Bharti Died Through Legal Heirs Savita Sadashiv Bharti
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Vishal Bagal, Advocate for the Petitioner
{7} 51-wp-12638-2026
Mr. V.M. Kagne, AGP for the State
WRIT PETITION NO. 13163 OF 2026
Rohidas Lahana Bansode And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Vaibhav Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. B.B. Bhise, AGP for State
.......
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. By these petitions, the petitioners seek directions to the
respondents to grant them notional / annual increment which was due
on 01st 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 advocates for petitioners submit 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
{8} 51-wp-12638-2026
increments is from 1st July up to the 30th day of June of the 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.
{9} 51-wp-12638-2026
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 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 Petitions are 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.
{10} 51-wp-12638-2026
(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.)
Bhagyawant Punde
Checking your session…