Bombay High Court

GAJANAN DATTARAO PEDE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: N B SURYAWANSHI ABASAHEB D SHINDE

Holding

The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to recalculated pension benefits that include the annual increment of their last drawn salary, payable within ninety days, but no interest is due on arrears.

Summary

The petitioners, a group of former government employees, filed writ petitions challenging the calculation of their pension benefits after superannuation, alleging that the State of Maharashtra had not incorporated the annual increment of their last drawn salary. The High Court examined whether the petitioners were eligible for enhanced pension benefits, the criteria for eligibility (including a six‑month work requirement in the last year), and whether interest should be payable on any arrears. Relying on its earlier decision in Ashok Valmik Badoge v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the pensionary benefits must be recalculated to include the last salary increment and that arrears, if any, should be paid within ninety days. The Court further ruled that petitioners who approached the Court belatedly would not be entitled to an interest component on the arrears. Accordingly, the petitions were partially allowed with specific directions on the recalculation and payment of pension benefits.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are entitled to pension benefits calculated on the basis of the last drawn salary including annual increment.
Whether the six‑month work requirement in the last year before superannuation is a condition for entitlement to the enhanced pension.
Whether interest is payable on arrears of pension benefits when the petition is filed belatedly.

Subjects

pension
superannuation
arrears
interest
eligibility
recalculation
writ petition
high court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:31345-DB
                                                  1                          31,33.doc



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                          31 WRIT PETITION NO. 8329 OF 2026

                   GAJANAN DATTARAO PEDE AND OTHERS
                                VERSUS
     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND
                                OTHERS
                                            ...


                  Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Mathpati Shivkumar K
                        AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. B.B. Bhise
                 Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar
                                             …
                         33 WRIT PETITION NO. 8332 OF 2026

                  KADUBAL MANIKRAO FASATE AND OTHERS
                                       VERSUS
     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND
                                       OTHERS
                                          …
               Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Mathpati Shivkumar K
                   AGP for Respondent/State : Ms.V.S. Choudhari
                Advocate for Respondent No.3 to 5 : Mr. S.R. Dheple
                                          …
                                          …
                                          CORAM       : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                                        ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                            DATE      : 27.07.2026

             PER COURT :
             .          The issue raised in these petitions is squarely covered by the
             decision of this Court in the case of Ashok Valmik Badoge and Others
             vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others dated 09.04.2026 in Writ
             Petition No. 4539 of 2026.

             2.      For the reasons stated in the said order, the Writ Petitions are
                                  2                      31,33.doc



partly allowed in terms of the 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. )



vsj..

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…