Disposed¶J-4

Sampat Aba Jadhavar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jan 2025WP/6119/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Annual increment; notional addition of one increment; increment earned not advance increment; superannuation after office hours on 30.06.2009; service from 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2009; revised pension approval; Accountant General (A and E); Education Officer Secondary, Zilla Parishad Solapur; G.R. dated 28.06.2023; W.P. No. 1881 of 2023 Aurangabad Bench affirmed by Supreme Court; Bombay High Court Writ Petition No. 6119 of 2024; petition disposed with 30-day direction to clear proposal.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a direction to the Accountant General (A and E) to clear the Education Officer's proposal within 30 days and raise no objection to the notional addition of one annual increment earned by the Petitioner, enabling approval of the revised pension. ¶J-4

Sampat Aba Jadhavar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶J-4

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, who served from 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2009 and superannuated after office hours on 30.06.2009, is entitled to the notional addition of one annual increment and consequential approval of his revised pension.

¶J-4

Court's answer

The Court directed the Accountant General (A and E) to clear the proposal forwarded by the Education Officer within 30 days and to raise no objection to the notional addition of one annual increment earned by the Petitioner, who superannuated after office hours on 30.06.2009.

¶J-4

Ratio / Principle

Adopting the position crystallised in the G.R. dated 28.06.2023 and the affirmed judgment in W.P. No. 1881 of 2023, the annual increment is not an advance increment but an increment earned for working over 12 months in the preceding calendar year.

¶J-2

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ghüge and Bhobe, JJ., 10.02.2025) disposed of Writ Petition No. 6119 of 2024 filed by Sampat Aba Jadhavar concerning pensionary benefits. The learned AGP produced a communication dated 04.02.2025 from the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur to the Accountant General directing that the annual increment earned by the Petitioner for service from 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2009 be added and the revised pension approved; the copy was marked 'X' for identification. Counsel relied on the G.R. dated 28.06.2023 reflecting the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench dated 16.02.2023 in W.P. No. 1881 of 2023, affirmed by the Supreme Court, that the annual increment is earned for working over twelve months in the preceding calendar year and is not an advance increment. The Court directed the Accountant General (A and E) to clear the proposal within 30 days and to raise no objection to the notional addition of one annual increment for the Petitioner, who superannuated after office hours on 30.06.2009.

¶1

Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date: 2025.02.15 2.WP6119.2024.odt 10:27:46 +0530

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6119 OF 2024

¶4

Sampat Aba Jadhavar. … Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents.

¶5

¶6

Mr. Shrirang Katneshwarkar, a/w. Mr. Sandeep Gupta, for the Petitioner. Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for Respondent/State. Mr. Ashok Tajane, for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

¶7

¶8

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ. DATE : 10^th FEBRUARY, 2025

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The learned AGP has placed on record a photostat copy of a communication dated 4^th February, 2025, addressed by Shri Sachin Jagtap, Education Officer, Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Solapur, addressed to the Accountant General, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai, by which the annual increment earned by the Petitioner for working since 1.7.2008 till 30.06.2009, has been directed to be added and the revised pension be approved.

¶11

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner rightly points out the G.R. dated 28.06.2023 wherein the Judgment of this Court delivered

Talwalkar

2.WP6119.2024.odt

at the Aurangabad Bench dated 16^th February, 2023 in Writ Petition No. 1881 of 2023 and the fact that the said Judgment has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, crystallized the position that the annual increment was actually not an advance increment, but an increment earned for working over 12 months in the preceding calendar year.

¶16

The said photostat copy of the letter is marked as ‘X’ for identification.

¶17

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off . We direct the Accountant General (A and E) that the said proposal forwarded by the Education Officer shall be cleared in 30 days and no objection shall be raised in so far as the notional addition of one annual increment which the Petitioner has earned when he is superannuated after the office hours

¶18

on 30.06.2009.

¶19

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶20

¶21

Talwalkar

Sampat Aba Jadhavar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampat Aba Jadhavar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil P Bodke vs Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, Mumbai Port Authority

Sanjay Dasa Yenare vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Aruna Shivdas Vasakar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary and Ors.

Rohini Arun Wadghule Alias Sakshi S. Wanzare and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary and Ors.

Dhansing Dalsing Rajput vs State of Maharashtra

Sidheshwar Mahadeo Randive vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Sectretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare