MACCHINDRANATH ASARAM KHAWALE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:26944-DB


                                                 {1}                    wp6874-26.doc
                 drp
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.6874 OF 2026

                 Machhindranath Asaram Khawale and Others             PETITIONERS

                        VERSUS

                 The State of Maharashtra and Others                 RESPONDENTS

                                               .......
                 Ms. Suchita S. Upadhyaya, Advocate for the Petitioners
                 Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, AGP for Respondent - State
                                               ....…
                                               AND
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.6881 OF 2026

                 Devidas Janardhan Bodkhe and Others                  PETITIONERS

                        VERSUS

                 The State of Maharashtra and Others                 RESPONDENTS

                                              .......
                 Ms. Suchita S. Upadhyaya, Advocate for the Petitioners
                 Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondent - State
                                              .......

                              [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
                                       ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.]

                                      DATE : 7th JULY, 2026

                 ORDER :

                 1.     Indisputably, the issue raised in these petitions 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
                                      {2}                      wp6874-26.doc

“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.

     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
                                {3}                          wp6874-26.doc

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 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 6 th 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
                                     {4}                        wp6874-26.doc

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

prospectively.
                               {5}                   wp6874-26.doc

3.    In view of 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

consequential benefits be calculated by adding up the said

advance increments. Since some Petitioners are superannuated,

all consequential benefits post recalculation be paid to them,

within 90 days.



[ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ]                 [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
         JUDGE                                    JUDGE

drp/wp6874-26.doc