Bombay High Court
DATTATRAYA SHANKAR PATIL AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE PRIN. SECRETARY AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the Government Resolutions of 4 September 2014 and 24 August 2017 cannot be applied retrospectively and that the petitioners are entitled to the additional increment under the 12 December 2000 resolution.
Summary
The petitioners, who are District/State Awardee Teachers, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking the release of an additional increment and related arrears as per the Government Resolution dated 12 December 2000. The State of Maharashtra had later issued a Resolution on 4 September 2014 and another on 24 August 2017, purportedly discontinuing the scheme of advance increments. The petitioners contended that these later resolutions could not be applied retrospectively to deny their entitlement. The Court, relying on its own earlier judgment in Writ Petition No. 2428 of 2026 and a 2022 review decision, held that both the 2014 and 2017 resolutions have only prospective effect. Consequently, the petitioners were confirmed to be entitled to the additional increment under the 2000 resolution. The Court ordered the Zilla Parishad to release the increment within three months and to issue reasoned orders for any invalid claims.
Issues considered
- Whether the Government Resolution dated 4 September 2014 can be applied retrospectively to deny the additional increment to District/State Awardee Teachers.
- Whether the Government Resolution dated 24 August 2017 can be applied retrospectively to discontinue the scheme of advance increments.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to the additional increment under the Government Resolution dated 12 December 2000.
- Whether the High Court can grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- advance increment
- district awardee teacher
- retrospective effect
- government resolution
- Article 226
- writ of mandamus
- pay scale
- pensionary benefits
Judgment
919-9257-2025-CWP=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9257 OF 2025
Digitally
signed by Dattatraya Shankar Patil and Ors. … Petitioners
UDAY
UDAY SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP
JAGTAP Date: Versus
2026.04.21
10:17:46
+0530
The State of Maharashtra Thr. The Principal … Respondents
Secretary and Ors.
………….
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioners.
Mr. Kedar Lad for Respondent No.17.
Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent - State.
………….
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR &
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 18th APRIL, 2026.
P. C. :
1. In the present petition, the Petitioners claim following relief :-
“b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise the powers
vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other Writ in the nature
of Mandamus, Order and direction directing the Respondent
State and its subordinate Authorities to release one advance/
additional increments in favour of the Petitioners in the pay
scale which was applicable to them at the relevant time and
further revise pay-scale as well as pensionary benefits of the
Petitioners and release entire arrears of difference of salary as
well as pensionary benefits within stipulated period which this
Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper;”
Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 8
919-9257-2025-CWP=.doc
2. In the present petition the contention of the Petitioners is that they
were District Awardee Teachers by the State Government and
consequently they are entitled for the additional increment in terms of
Government Resolution dated 12th December 2000. However, though
they are pursuing their cause for a considerable period, the same was not
released in their favour by the Respondent. It is pointed out that the
State Government has subsequently issued further Government
Resolution dated 4th September 2014 and thereby it is held that the
District Awardee Teachers would not be entitled for the benefit of
additional increment.
3. In the light of this subsequent Government Resolution, the
Petitioners are deprived from the additional increment. Learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioners in support of their submission has relied
upon the order passed by the Principal Bench in Writ Petition No. 2428 of
2026 along with other connected matters, dated 2 nd April 2026 wherein
identical issue was decided.
4. Learned AGP does not dispute about the judgment delivered by the
Principal Bench in the identical matters.
Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 8
919-9257-2025-CWP=.doc
5. It would be relevant to refer to the findings, which are recorded by
the Principal Bench in Writ Petition No. 2428 of 2026 along with other
petitions from paragraph Nos. 3 to 5, which read as under :-
“3. In various judgments of this Court, it was consistently
held that the Government Resolution dated 24/08/2017,
would operate prospectively and would not have the effect of
retrospective denial of advance increments. The State
Government and various Zilla Parishads had filed Review
Petitions seeking review of various orders passed by this Court.
It was inter-alia sought to be contended in the said Review
Petitions that, even though the ultimate decision for stoppage
of the scheme for advance increments might have been taken
on 24/08/2017, it was earlier directed by way of a Circular
dated 03/07/2009, to undertake the exercise of pay fixation as
per the 6th Pay Commission Pay scales, without taking into
consideration the advance increments.
4. By judgment and order dated 30/08/2022, this Court has
rejected the Review Petitions after considering all the
objections raised by the State Government. It was held that, no
specific instructions were issued before 24/08/2017, for
discontinuation of the scheme of advance increments.
Paragraph Nos. 12 to 15 of the judgment and order dated
30/08/2022, passed in Review Application (Civil) No.170 of
2022 in Writ Petition No.13760 of 2019 (The State of
Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Rupchand S/o. Narayan Shinde and
Ors.), read as under:
"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
Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 8
919-9257-2025-CWP=.doc
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 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 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 a 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,
Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 8
919-9257-2025-CWP=.doc
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 scales as per 6th 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 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 from
01.10.2006 to 01.10.2015. While issuing such
orders having retrospective effect, the State
Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 8
919-9257-2025-CWP=.doc
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
27.02.2009/03.07.2009 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."
5. Thus, it is now a 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.”
6. The co-ordinate bench of this Court has held that the Government
Resolution dated 24th August 2017 cannot be made applicable
retrospectively and as such allowed the Writ Petition. It is held that the
Petitioners to whom the District / State Awardee Teacher has been
conferred, are entitled for the additional increment in terms of
Uday S. Jagtap 6 of 8
919-9257-2025-CWP=.doc
Government Resolution dated 12th December 2000.
7. In the light of the observations made by the co-ordinate bench, we
are also of the same view that the Government Resolution dated 4 th
September 2014 cannot be made applicable retrospectively.
8. In view of the above, we pass the following order.
ORDE R
(i) The Respondent – Zilla Parishad after confirming the entitlement
of the Petitioners being District / State Awardee Teachers and the
Certificate if issued prior to 4th September 2014, shall consider their
entitlement and release the additional increment in terms of Government
Resolution dated 12th December 2000 within a period of 3 months from
the date of order.
(ii) It is needless to mention that if any claim of any Petitioner is
invalidated insofar as his entitlement is concerned, a reasoned order in
each of such case be passed and the said order be served upon the
concerned Petitioner/s within a period of 4 weeks from the date of such
order.
Uday S. Jagtap 7 of 8
919-9257-2025-CWP=.doc
9. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. ] [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Uday S. Jagtap 8 of 8
Checking your session…