Bombay High Court
VIJAY BABULAL DANE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Government Resolution dated 24‑08‑2017 discontinuing the scheme of advance increments operates only prospectively and cannot be given retrospective effect.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the State of Maharashtra's decision to discontinue the scheme of advance increments for government employees, arguing that the Government Resolution dated 24‑08‑2017 should have retrospective effect. The Court examined earlier resolutions and circulars of 2009, which were found to be temporary measures and did not constitute a final discontinuation. It held that the definitive decision to discontinue the scheme was only taken on 24‑08‑2017 and that this decision could operate only prospectively. Consequently, the petitioners were deemed eligible for advance increments earned before that date, and the Court ordered the calculation and payment of the consequential benefits within 90 days. The writ petitions were therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- The legal effect of the Government Resolution dated 24‑08‑2017 on the scheme of advance increments – prospective or retrospective?
- Whether earlier resolutions and circulars (2009) constituted a final discontinuation of the advance increment scheme.
- The entitlement of petitioners to advance increments earned prior to the 2017 resolution.
- The authority of the State Government to grant retrospective benefits under a later resolution.
Subjects
- advance increments
- prospective effect
- retrospective legislation
- government resolution
- 6th Central Pay Commission
- Maharashtra state employees
- pay fixation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:35419-DB
1 12-17+21-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
12 WRIT PETITION NO. 9688 OF 2026
RAJU BHAGAJIRAO MASKE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Ms. Suchita S. Upadhyay, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondents/State
...
13 WRIT PETITION NO. 9689 OF 2026
SHRI. SAMBHAJI LAXMAN DHAKANE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Ms. Suchita S. Upadhyay, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N. S. Tekale, AGP for Respondents/State
...
14 WRIT PETITION NO. 9701 OF 2026
MR. ARJUN GOPALRAO LOHARE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Ms. Suchita S. Upadhyay, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondents/State
...
15 WRIT PETITION NO. 9702 OF 2026
SHRI. RAMKANT MANIKRAO MELGAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Ms. Suchita S. Upadhyay, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondents/State
...
16 WRIT PETITION NO. 9708 OF 2026
MUKUND NARAYAN MAYEE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Ms. Suchita S. Upadhyay, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondents/State
SVH
2 12-17+21-22.odt
...
17 WRIT PETITION NO. 9709 OF 2026
MR. MADHUKAR GOVINDRAO MAPARI AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Ms. Suchita S. Upadhyay, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondents/State
...
20 WRIT PETITION NO. 9725 OF 2026
MR. SUBHASH CHAITRAM KAPGATE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Ms. Suchita S. Upadhyay, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondents/State
...
21 WRIT PETITION NO. 9732 OF 2026
SHRI. BHIKAN ASARUBA HAPAT AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Ms. Suchita S. Upadhyay, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondents/State
…
WRIT PETITION NO. 630 OF 2026
SHAIKH SALIM SHAIKH AHEMAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Ms. Suchita S. Upadhyay, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N. S. Tekale, AGP for Respondents/State
…
WRIT PETITION NO. 9984 OF 2026
SHRI. VIJAY BABULAL DANE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Ms. Suchita S. Upadhyay, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondents/State
...
SVH
3 12-17+21-22.odt
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 11th AUGUST, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Indisputably, the issue raised in these petitions is
squarely covered by the decision of this Court at Principal Seat 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
“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
SVH
4 12-17+21-22.odt
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
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 he 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
SVH
5 12-17+21-22.odt
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 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 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 / 03.07.2009 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 24.08.2017 would only have prospective
effect.”
2. This Court, therefore, held that 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.
SVH
6 12-17+21-22.odt
3. In view of the 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 the
consequential benefits be calculated by adding up the said advance
increments. Since some of the Petitioners are superannuated, all
consequential benefits post recalculation be paid to them within a
period of 90 days.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
SVH
Checking your session…