Bombay High Court

ASHOK MANIKRAO KHEDKAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

Petitioners are entitled to pension benefits recalculated with the notional annual increment, provided they served six months or more in the year preceding superannuation.

Summary

The petitioners, retired District Court employees, filed a writ petition seeking a notional annual increment to be added to their pension calculations, arguing that they had served at least six months in the year preceding their superannuation. They relied on several earlier High Court judgments and a Supreme Court order dismissing a challenge to those judgments. The respondents contended that Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 is a transitory provision and sought time to file a reply. The Court held that the rule entitles employees who have worked six months or more in a year to the annual increment for pension computation, and that the respondents' objections were already settled by precedent. Accordingly, the petition was partly allowed: the pension benefits were to be recalculated including the increment, arrears to be paid within 90 days, and no interest awarded.

Issues considered

Whether retired District Court employees who worked six months or more in the last year are entitled to a notional annual increment for pension calculation under Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009.
Whether the High Court can grant relief without hearing the respondents given the existing jurisprudence.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 — s. Rule 10

Subjects

pension
annual increment
retirement benefits
Maharashtra Civil Services Rules
writ of mandamus
district court employees
high court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:34907-DB
1 911.WP.8740.26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 8740 OF 2026

ASHOK MANIKRAO KHEDKAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Vaibhav U. Pawar
AGP for Respondent/State : Ms. V.S. Chaudhari
Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : Mr. S.P. Shah
…

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : 06.08.2026

PER COURT:

1. Leave is granted to carry out the correction in the chart

mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the petition.

2. By this petition the petitioners - District Court employees,

are seeking following reliefs :

“a) The Writ Petition may kindly be allowed.

b) This Hon'ble court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature
thereby directing to the Respondent No. 4 and 5 to Grant
Notional Annual Increment to petitioners which was due on
1st July i.e. after retirement of the petitioners, as petitioners
served with good conduct more than 6 Months in a year.

c) This Hon'ble court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature
thereby directing to the Respondents No. 4 and 5 to
2 911.WP.8740.26.odt

recalculate retirement benefit by including annual
increment and thereof to pay all the retirement benefit to
petitioners with arrears within stipulated time period and
for that purpose this Hon'ble Court may pass necessary
order or direction in favor of the petitioners.
d) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition to
direct the Respondent No. 4 and 5 to grant retirement
benefit including annual increment which was due on after
retirement of the petitioners.
e) Grant ad-interim relief in terms of Prayer Clause "d" may
kindly be granted.
f) Any other just and equitable relief which this Hon'ble High
Court deems fit in the interest of justice may kindly be
granted”

3. Learned advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance on

several orders passed by this Court at Principal Seat, at Aurangabad

Bench and Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, particularly, the order passed by

this Court at Principal Seat in Writ Petition No.15662/2025 on

18.03.2026 and also the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition

No.6396/2020 on 24.06.2021, Writ Petition No.14632/2021 and

connected matters on 04.05.2022, Writ Petition No.8224/2022 dated

11.08.2022, and Writ Petition No.8366/2026 on 28.07.2026 and the

order passed by the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur in Writ Petition

No.2163/2026 on 17.06.2026, in Writ Petition (ST) No.5115/2026 on

25.06.2026 and in Writ Petition No.6012/2026 decided on

28.07.2026, wherein, the District Court employees were granted

similar relief as is prayed by the petitioners herein by relying on

earlier orders.
3 911.WP.8740.26.odt

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners further points out that

in the common order passed in Writ Petition No.14632/2021 and

connected matters, this Court has observed as follows :

“2. In all these petitions, the issue that has been raised by the
petitioners is as regards the notional addition of an annual
increment, while computing their pension and pensionary
benefits. Such increment became due and payable one day
after their superannuation. This issue has been considered
and decided by this Court [Coram : Ravindra V. Ghuge &
Avinash G. Gharote, JJ.] by order dated 24 th June, 2021 in
Writ Petition No.6396 of 2020 filed by Prakash Tulshiram
Chaudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. This order
was assailed by the State of Maharashtra before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.
206 of 2022. The Hon’ble Apex Court [Coram : Hon’ble
Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna
Murari] passed an order on 12.01.2022 concluding as
under:-

“We are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order. The Special Leave Petition
is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application also stands disposed of.”

5. The petitioners, therefore, pray for the same relief as is

granted by this Court to the similarly situated petitioners.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the High Court Registry

vehemently opposed the petition stating that Rule 10 of the

Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay), Rules, 2009 is a transitory

provision and the same needs to be considered in the proper

perspective. He therefore submits that respondents may be granted

time to file reply.
4 911.WP.8740.26.odt

7. The issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by the

several decisions referred to hereinabove, rendered by this Court. This

Court at Principal Seat in the decision rendered in Writ Petition

No.15662/2025 and connected writ petitions has held thus:

“7. 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 1 st
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.”

8. In view of the above, we are not inclined to grant time to

the respondents to file reply. Since the argument advanced by the

respondents is already covered and the challenge raised by the State to

the similar orders is negatived by the Apex Court, for the reasons

stated in the orders referred to hereinabove, writ petition is 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
5 911.WP.8740.26.odt

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.)

habeeb/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…