Bombay High Court
SIDHARAM ANANDRAO HATTEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that Rule 11(2) cannot be invoked to carry forward prior increments in the present case and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, a government servant, claimed that seven increments earned between 1996 and 2003 were not reflected in his pay when the Justice Shetty Commission recommendations were applied, resulting in a lower salary of Rs.6,500 instead of the expected higher amount. He relied on Rule 11(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981, arguing that the rule protects previously earned increments and that denial amounted to discrimination. The respondents contended that the rule does not apply to the present situation and that the petitioner had already elected the pay fixation under the Commission, precluding any further claim. The Court examined the applicability of Rule 11(2)(b) and (c) and prior case law, concluding that those provisions relate only to fixation on appointment to a new post, not to the implementation of a revised pay structure. Consequently, the Court found no basis to carry forward the earlier increments and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether Rule 11(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981 applies to protect increments earned prior to the implementation of the Justice Shetty Commission recommendations.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to have previously earned increments carried forward in the pay fixation under the Commission.
- Whether the non‑consideration of prior increments amounts to discrimination under the pay rules.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981 — s. 11(2)(a), 11(2)(b), 11(2)(c)
Subjects
- pay fixation
- increments
- protection of pay
- Maharashtra Civil Services Pay Rules
- Justice Shetty Commission
- discrimination
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:37143-DB
906 WP NO. 5517 OF 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5517 OF 2016
Sidharam Anandrao Hatte
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
…
• Mr. Gaurav L. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner
• Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4
…
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 11th AUGUST, 2026
PER COURT :
1] Heard learned advocate Mr. Gaurav L. Deshpande for the
petitioner and learned AGP Mr. K. N. Lokhande for respondent Nos.1,
3 and 4.
2] The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that,
while he was in service, the benefit of the increments earned by him
was not taken into consideration while fixing his pay pursuant to the
recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission. It is the case of
the petitioner that, from 1996 till 2003, he had earned seven
increments. However, according to the petitioner, though he was
entitled to seven increments, one increment was not granted for one
year. Thereafter, when the benefit of the Justice Shetty Commission
recommendation was made applicable to him, his pay came to be
fixed at Rs.6,500/-, as against the earlier pay of Rs.6,350/-. It is the
case of the petitioner that, while fixing his pay under the Justice
Jhs/ 1/9
906 WP NO. 5517 OF 2016
Shetty Commission, his pay as on the date on which the said
recommendations were made applicable ought to have been taken at
Rs.6,500/- and the benefit of the seven increments ought to have
been given to him by adding seven increments over and above pay of
Rs. 6500/- from the year 2003.
3] Learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance upon Rule
11(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981. The
said provision reads as under:—
“11. Fixation of pay on appointment to another
post. - Save as provided in Rules 12, 13, 14, 17 and
20 where a Government servant holding a post in a
substantive, temporary or officiating capacity, is
promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary
or officiating capacity, to another post including an
ex-cadre post, his initial pay shall be regulated as
follows :-
(2) If the appointment to the new post does not
involve such assumption :-
(a) if there is a stage in the time-scale of
the new post which is equal to his pay in the
old post, he shall draw pay at that stage;
(b) if there is no such stage, he will draw
pay at the stage next above his pay in the
post:
(c) in the case covered by Clause (a), he
will draw his next increment on the date on
which he would have received increment in
the old post and in the case covered by Clause
(b), he will draw his next increment in the
new post on completion of the required period
after which an increment is earned in the
time-scale of the new post:
Jhs/ 2/9
906 WP NO. 5517 OF 2016
Provided that, a Government servant on his
appointment to such a new post, may at his option, to be
exercised within one month from the date of his
appointment, elect for fixation of his pay in one of the
following manners, namely :-
(i) either to get his initial pay fixed
straightaway with effect from the date of his
appointment to the new post; or
(ii) to get his pay fixed with effect from
the date of his next increment in the old
post.”
4] Learned advocate for the petitioner thus submits that non-
protection of the increments already earned by the petitioner would
amount to discrimination. He submits that protection of pay would
necessarily include protection of the pay along with the increments
already earned by the Government servant during his service. He,
therefore, submits that the petitioner is entitled to protection of the
increments earned by him prior to implementation of the
recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission and consequently
prays for allowing the writ petition. In support of his submissions,
learned advocate for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment
of this Court in Association of Personal Assistants, Private Secretaries
& Senior Private Secretaries and Others v. State of Maharashtra and
Others, reported in 2018 (3) Bom.C.R. 608.
5] Learned AGP for the respondents vehemently opposes the
petition. He submits that Rule 11(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Civil
Jhs/ 3/9
906 WP NO. 5517 OF 2016
Services (Pay) Rules, 1981 is not applicable to the facts of the present
case and, in any event, the said provision does not contemplate
protection of the increments already earned by the petitioner while
implementing the recommendations of the Justice Shetty
Commission. He further submits that the petitioner has already
exercised the option to have his pay fixed in accordance with the
recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission and, having
availed of such option, he cannot subsequently seek to revert to the
earlier position and claim, in addition, protection of the increments
earned by him prior to such fixation.
6] Learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance upon
paragraphs 13 and 16 of the judgment in the case of Association of
Personal Assistants, Private Secretaries & Senior Private Secretaries
and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others , reported in 2018 (3)
Bom.C.R. 608, particularly upon the provisions of Rule 11(2)(b) and
(c) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981. He submits
that the said decision recognizes the principle of protection of pay
while fixing the pay of an employee in the higher post, including
protection against loss of substantive pay. He has relied upon
paragraph 16 of the said judgment, which reads as under:—
“13. Since it is not the case of the petitioners that the post of
Private Secretary involves assumption of duties or
responsibilities of greater importance than that of Personal
Jhs/ 4/9
906 WP NO. 5517 OF 2016
Secretary, the fixation will have to be processed in terms of
subclause (2) of Rule 11. Since the appointment of the
petitioners to the post of Private Secretary does not involve
assumption of duties or responsibilities of greater importance
than those attached to the old posts, the pay fixation is done
by following subrule 2 of Rule 11. In case of the
petitioners, clause (a) is inapplicable since in the time scale
in the new post, the petitioners may not be able to find a
stage equal to their earlier stage. However, it can be
calculated and their pay has to be fixed by taking into
consideration clause (b) and clause (c). Pertinently, clause
(b) of subrule 2 of Rule 11 employs the word "pay". By its
very definition it is a inclusion of both personal and special
pay. The special pay which the petitioners were getting
would get converted into a personal pay equal to the
difference in the amount which particular incumbent would
draw at a stage next below his pay in the old post and the
personal pay would protect the loss of any substantive pay
caused to him on account of applying clause (b) of subrule
(2). In any case, the personal pay means an additional pay
granted to a Government servant to save him from loss of
substantive pay in respect of his post due to revision of pay
or due to any reduction of such substantive pay and
therefore the particular incumbent would stand protected by
treating the different amount as personal pay and by virtue
of clause (c) of subrule (2) of Rule 11, the incumbent would
continue to get that pay only till such time he would earn an
increment in the time scale of new post. The basic principle
of pay fixation being not to confer any undue benefit on any
Government servant on one hand and being not to deprive a
Government servant of pay which he would have otherwise
Jhs/ 5/9
906 WP NO. 5517 OF 2016
been entitled to by virtue of his reaching a particular stage in
a time scale. By this principle, members of the petitioner
association are entitled to have their pay fixation done by
applying Rule 11 sub Rule 2 (b) and (c).
14. ……………..
15. …………….
16. Applying the aforesaid principle laid by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, we do not feel that the members of the
Petitioner Association and the Petitioner No.2 who was
working as a Personal Secretary to the Hon'ble Judges and
who were conferred with a special pay since 01/01/1986 in
the earlier pay revision, can be deprived the special pay
which has become part of their pay, on their upgradation to
the post of Private Secretary in a higher pay scale of
Rs.10,000-325-15,200/. By applying the principle as
provided in Rule 11 (1) (a) sub Rule 2 (b) and (c) the pay
scale of the members of the petitioner association who are
working as Personal Secretary, who were upgraded to the
post of Private Secretary can be fixed by making them
eligible to earn a pay at the stage next below their pay in the
old post and the differential amount would be carried by
them as a personal pay. They would be entitled to continue
to draw that pay until such time as they receive increment in
the time scale of new post or that of the old post which ever
is earlier. Ultimately, actual calculations would have to be
drawn by the High Court being its employee and accordingly
the arrears due and payable to the petitioner be calculated
and paid to the petitioner forthwith.”
7] We have perused the judgment relied upon by the learned
advocate for the petitioner in Association of Personal Assistants,
Private Secretaries & Senior Private Secretaries and Others v. State of
Jhs/ 6/9
906 WP NO. 5517 OF 2016
Maharashtra and Others (supra). The said judgment was rendered in
the context of fixation of pay consequent upon the
appointment/upgradation from the post of Personal Secretary to the
post of Private Secretary, involving two distinct posts and a different
factual and legal situation. The Court, in the said case, considered the
applicability of Rule 11(2)(b) and (c) of the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Pay) Rules, 1981 and the question of protection of
substantive pay in the context of such appointment. In our considered
view, the said judgment, having regard to the facts and circumstances
involved therein, has no application to the facts of the present case.
8] Reference was also made to the judgment of this Court in the
case of Suresh Yadavrao Tidke v. State of Maharashtra through its
Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai and Others, in Writ Petition No.3713 of 2000, decided on
23.06.2011. The said decision arose in a different factual context
concerning fixation/protection of pay and, therefore, does not
advance the case of the petitioner in the present matter.
9] In the present case, on considering the pay-fixation record
produced before us and the manner in which the recommendations
of the Justice Shetty Commission have been implemented in the case
of the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner has already been
extended the benefit of the revised pay structure in accordance with
Jhs/ 7/9
906 WP NO. 5517 OF 2016
the applicable conditions. The question, therefore, is whether the
petitioner, after such fixation, can further claim protection of the
increments earned by him prior to the implementation of the Justice
Shetty Commission, by invoking Rule 11(2)(b) and (c) of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981.
10] In our view, the benefit of protection of pay under Rule 11(2)
(b) and (c) cannot be applied to the present case in the manner
sought by the petitioner. The said provisions operate cases of fixation
of pay on appointment to another post and cannot be invoked to
require carrying forward of the earlier increments of the petitioner
into the pay fixation made pursuant to the subsequent
implementation of the recommendations of the Justice Shetty
Commission.
11] Learned AGP also relied upon Rule 11(2)(a) of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981 and submits that, in the
facts of the present case, the petitioner has not suffered any loss of
pay on account of implementation of the recommendations of the
Justice Shetty Commission. He submits that the petitioner has been
granted the benefit of the revised pay-scale in accordance with the
applicable provisions and, therefore, there is no justification for
granting any further protection of the increments earned by him prior
to such implementation.
Jhs/ 8/9
906 WP NO. 5517 OF 2016
12] Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, the material placed on record
and the provisions relied upon, we find that the petitioner has failed
to establish that the increments earned by him prior to the
implementation of the recommendations of the Justice Shetty
Commission were required to be separately protected and carried
forward while fixing his pay under the said recommendations. The
reliance placed upon Rule 11(2)(a) and the judgment in Association
of Personal Assistants, Private Secretaries & Senior Private
Secretaries and Others (supra) does not help the petitioner, as the
said provision and the judgment operate in the context of fixation of
pay on appointment to another post, whereas the present controversy
concerns implementation of a subsequent revised pay structure. We,
therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned pay
fixation/objections.
13] In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is devoid of
merit and is accordingly dismissed.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
Jhs/ 9/9
Checking your session…