Disposed¶16

Prof. Chittoor S/O Gopalakrishna Raghavan v. State of Maharashtra, Finance Department, Thr. Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC7 Oct 2025WP/1476/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim order, Writ Petition No. 1476 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Anil S. Kilor and Rajnish R. Vyas, JJ., December 05, 2025): 7th Pay Commission recommendations, Clause 10.1.67 pension formulation; petitioner's contention of classes amongst a class / denial of benefits to employees retired after 01/01/2016 vis-a-vis those retired prior to 01/01/2016; State Government directed to file clarification affidavit by 17/12/2025; matter adjourned to 18/12/2025; no ratio settled.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction: time granted to the State Government to file an affidavit clarifying its position by 17/12/2025; matter listed on 18/12/2025. ¶16

Prof. Chittoor S/O Gopalakrishna Raghavan vs State of Maharashtra, Finance Department, Thr. Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 924-WP1476-2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1476 OF 2024

¶4

(PROF. CHITTOOR GOPALAKRISHNA RAGHAVAN....VS..STATE OF MAH. FINANCE DEPT. & OTH.)

¶5

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

- - - - Shri A.S.Jaiswal, Sr. Adv. a/b Ms Radhika Bajaj, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms Kalyani Marpakwar, A G.P. for Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.

¶8

DATED : DECEMBER 05, 2025.

¶9

In the present matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the 7^th Pay Commission recommendations, more particularly Clause 10.1.67, which reads thus :

¶10

“10.1.67 The Commission recommends the following pension formulation for civil employees including CAPF personnel, who have retired before 01.01.2016:

¶11

i) All the civilian personnel including CAPF who retired prior to 01.01.2016 (expected date of implementation of the Seventh CPC recommendations) shall first be fixed in the Pay Matrix being recommended by this Commission, on the basis of the Pay Band and Grade Pay at which they retired, at the minimum of the corresponding level in the matrix. This amount shall be raised, to arrive at the notional pay of the retiree, by adding the number of increments he/she had earned in that level while in service, at the rate of three percent. Fifty percent of the total amount so arrived at shall be the revised pension.

¶12

ii) The second calculation to be carried out is as follows. The pension, as had been fixed at the time of implementation of the VI CPC recommendations, shall be multiplied by 2.57 to arrive at an alternate value for the revised pension.

¶13

2 924-WP1476-2024

¶14

iii) Pensioners may be given the option of choosing whichever formulation is beneficial to them.”

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that by this Clause classes amongst a class have been created and thereby benefits which are made applicable to the employees retired prior to 01/01/2016 are denied to the employees retired after 01/01/2016.

¶16

In that view of the matter, time to clarify the position by filing an affidavit is granted to the State Government, which shall be filed by 17/12/2025.

¶17

Place this matter on 18/12/2025 .

¶18

(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J) (ANIL S.KILOR,J)

¶19

RRaut..

¶20

Signed by: Raut (RR) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 10/12/2025 12:40:42

Prof. Chittoor S/O Gopalakrishna Raghavan v. State of Maharashtra, Finance Department, Thr. Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof. Chittoor S/O Gopalakrishna Raghavan v. State of Maharashtra, Finance Department, Thr. Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shon S/O Baburao Tangde and Another vs the Vice Chancellor/ Registrar, Gondwana University, Gadchiroli and Others

M/S. Talha Enterprise, Thr. Proprietor, Mr. Faizan Ali Siddiqui vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Ministry of Agri. and Animal Hus. and Dairy Dev. and Fisheries and Ors.

Rashtriya Swayam Rojgar Nagarik Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Thr. President, Harish Anil Sahu vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

The South Indian Bank Ltd., Nagpur, Thr. Authorised Officer and Chief Manager, Mr. Vysakh Jayan vs M/S J. S. Transport Corporation, Repres. by. Its Partner, Boney Singh Sidhu and Others

Vishal S/O Nagorao Ambagade vs State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secretary, Dept. of Energy, Mumbai and Ors.

Jaykumar S/O Jagdish Singh and Others vs Coal India Limited, Thr. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Kolkata and Ors.