Disposed

Hanmant Mahadeo Dere and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Apr 2026WP/4185/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought re-fixation of pay scales with additional increments for excellent work denied by Government Resolution dated 24/08/2017. Following earlier rulings, the Court held the Resolution operates prospectively, declared petitioners eligible for advance increments prior to that date, and directed consequential benefits within 90 days.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that GR dated 24/08/2017 operates prospectively; petitioners held eligible for advance increments pre-24/08/2017; consequential benefits recalculated and payable within 90 days.

Hanmant Mahadeo Dere and Ors. vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

917 to 934.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

(Sr. No. 917) WRIT PETITION NO. 2428 OF 2026

¶4

Bhimrao Nanduba Kamble and Ors ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondents WITH (Sr. No. 920) WRIT PETITION NO. 4151 OF 2026 Jagannath Bhalchandra Kulkarni & Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondents

¶5

WITH (Sr. No. 922) WRIT PETITION NO. 4154 OF 2026

¶6

Dattatray Rajaram Kadnor & Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondents

¶7

WITH (Sr. No. 923) WRIT PETITION NO. 4156 OF 2026

¶8

Khanderao Shivaji Jagtap & Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondents

¶9

WITH (Sr. No. 924) WRIT PETITION NO. 4157 OF 2026

¶10

Riyaz Allabaksh Pachhapure & Anr. ….Petitioners Versus

1 of 10

Sufiyan Syed - PA

917 to 934.odt

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondents
WITH (Sr. No. 925) WRIT PETITION NO. 4160 OF 2026
Ravindra Prabhakar More & Anr. ….Petitioners *Versus*
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondents

¶15

WITH (Sr. No. 927) WRIT PETITION NO. 4162 OF 2026

¶16

Dattatray Baban Raut & Ors. ….Petitioners
*Versus*
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondents
WITH (Sr. No. 928)WRIT PETITION NO. 4171 OF 2026

¶17

Nandkishor Eknath Pawar *Versus*	….Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.	….Respondents
WITH (Sr. No. 929)WRIT PETITION NO. 41	73 OF 2026
Sudhir Dattatray Darade & Anr. *Versus*	….Petitioners
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.	….Respondents
WITH (Sr. No. 932) WRIT PETITION NO. 4	178 OF 2026
Anil Vyankatrao Jagtap & Anr. *Versus*	….Petitioners
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.	….Respondents
Sufiyan Syed - PA 2 of 10

¶18

917 to 934.odt

¶19

WITH (Sr. No. 933)WRIT PETITION NO. 4180 OF 2026

¶20

Vijay Hanumant Mukane & Anr. ….Petitioners

¶21

Versus

¶22

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondents

¶23

WITH (Sr. No. 934)WRIT PETITION NO. 4185 OF 2026

¶24

Hanmant Mahadeo Dere & Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondents

¶25

Mr. Sandeep Sontakke, for the Petitioners in all matters. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP. a/w. Advocate D. S. Deshmukh, AGP in Writ Petition No. 2428 of 2026.

¶26

Mr. O. A. Chandurkar Addl. GP. a/w Mr. A. K. Naik, AGP in Writ Petition No. 4151 of 2026.

¶27

Mr. O. A. Chandurkar Addl. GP. a/w. Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP in Writ Petition No. 4154 of 2026.

¶28

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w. Advocate M. M. Pable, AGP in Writ Petition No. 4156 of 2026.

¶29

Ms. Neha S. Bhide GP a/w Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP a/w Mr. A. R. Deolekar, AGP in Writ Petition No. 4157 of 2026. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP. a/w Mr. V. G. Badgujar, AGP in Writ Petition No. 4160 of 2026.

¶30

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w Mr. A. K. Naik, AGP in Writ Petition No. 4162 of 2026.

¶31

Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP a/w Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP in Writ Petition No. 4171 of 2026.

¶32

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w Advocate A. C. Bhadang, AGP in Writ Petition No. 4173 of 2026.

¶33

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP. a/w. Mr. V. G. Badgujar, AGP in Writ Petition No. 4178 of 2026.

¶34

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w Ms. D. S. Deshmukh, AGP in Writ Petition No. 4180 of 2026.

¶35

Sufiyan Syed - PA 3 of 10

¶36

917 to 934.odt

¶37

Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP. a/w. Mr. A. K. Naik, AGP in Writ Petition No. 4185 of 2026.

¶38

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 2^nd APRIL, 2026

¶39

P.C. :-

¶40

Since all the Petitioners are identically placed, we reproduce Prayer Clauses (B), (C), and (D) only from the first

¶41

Petition, hereinbelow :

¶42

B) By issuing Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature, to direct the Respondents to Re-fix the pay-scale of Petitioners thereby including additional increments granted by Respondents (Exh.’C’) in view of the orders of this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 9967 of 2021 dated 06.10.2022.

¶43

C) By issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature. The Respondents may be directed to pay/release monetary benefits of additional increments for “Excellent Work” granted to Petitioners (Exh.-’C’) with consequential benefits to the Petitioners by fixing reformative sixth pay scales and for that purpose issue necessary direction or order to the Respondents and to refund the amount recovered from the Petitioners if any.

¶44

D) To grant any other suitable relief in favor of the Petitioners and entitled by them as per the law.

4 of 10

Sufiyan Syed - PA

917 to 934.odt

The dispute has essentially arisen on account of the Government Resolution dated 24/08/2017, by which a decision was taken, not to grant the benefit of advance increments during the 6th Pay Commission regime, from 01/10/2006 to 01/10/2015.

¶49

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.

¶50

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

5 of 10

Sufiyan Syed - PA

917 to 934.odt

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 :

¶55

“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.

¶56

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 employees/ Officers rendering outstanding service, increment

6 of 10

Sufiyan Syed - PA

917 to 934.odt

@ 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, we do not find that the orders under review need to be disturbed on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 27.02.2009.

¶61

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

7 of 10

Sufiyan Syed - PA

917 to 934.odt

avail.

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 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

8 of 10

Sufiyan Syed - PA

917 to 934.odt

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.”

¶71

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.

¶72

All these Writ Petitions is, therefore, disposed off with the declaration 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 consequential benefits be calculated by adding up the said advance increments. Since some Petitioners have superannuated, all consequential benefits post recalculation, be paid to the Petitioners within 90 days.

¶73

We make it clear that if the authorities come across after due verification that any of the concerned employees was not entitled to the benefits of advance increments, a reasoned order be

9 of 10

Sufiyan Syed - PA

917 to 934.odt

passed separately, drawing conclusions as to how the candidate is not eligible. However, if such candidate was earlier being paid the said benefit, our directions in this order shall apply to such a candidates.

¶78

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶79

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶80

10 of 10

¶81

Sufiyan Syed - PA

Hanmant Mahadeo Dere and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanmant Mahadeo Dere and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anand Bhagwantrao Wagh and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anurath Popat Galgate vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. of Rural Development and Ors.

Dikshita Bharat Ware vs the District Collector Thane and Ors.

Maroti Babarao Ghenekar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors.

Sunil Fakirrao Bachhav and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary, Gen. Administration Dept. and Ors.

Ravindra Prabhakar More and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Sec. General Administration Dept and Ors.