1 107 wp 7477.26.odt..odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.7477/2026 (MAHENDRA BHASKARRAO BASAWNATHE & OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Shri S.S. Shinde, counsel for the petitioners. Shri V.A. Thakre, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE , JJ. D ATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 . Heard Mr. S.S. Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners, who are employees of the respondent No.4-The Commissioner of Agricultural Pune working on various posts as enumerated in paragraph No.1 of the present writ petition have approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to grant one notional/annual increment which became due on 1st July immediately after the retirement of the petitioners by including said increment in their last pay drawn and to revise their pay fixation accordingly. The aforesaid issue as regards the granting of one notional annual increment which became due on 1st July immediately after the retirement is no longer res integra and is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, so also by the catena of judgments passed by this Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director (ADMN. and HR) KPTCL vs. VC.P. Mundinamani [AIR 2023 SC 1956] which is at Record Page 68 has granted such benefit of the notional/ annual increment to the employees, who were similarly situated with the petitioners. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.15662/2025 had held thus in its judgment dated 18.03.2026:- 2026:BHC-NAG:12926-DB 2 107 wp 7477.26.odt..odt “4. The issue raised by these Petitioners is no longer res integra. Under the 6th Pay Commission, the year for accounting the annual increments is from 1 July up to the 30th day of June of the next year. The issue as to whether a candidate would be entitled for such increment if he/she superannuates on 30th June, was dealt with by several Courts. 5. By a judgment dated 4th May, 2022 delivered in Writ Petition No.14632 of 2021 at Aurangabad in Balaji Manikrao Biradar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., led to the conclusion that since this increment is not an advance increment, but is an increment which is payable after completing one year of employment, notwithstanding that a candidate superannuates after office hours on 30th June, he is deemed to have earned the annual increment and, therefore, the increment is payable. 6. Several orders/judgments delivered by this Court were assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same have been sustained. A large bunch of cases were taken up for adjudication by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director (ADMN. and HR) KPTCL vs. V. C. P. Mundinamani", and it was concluded that the said increment is earned by an employee for working over one year and hence, the employee is entitled to an increment even if he/she retires on 30th June of a particular year. 7. Insofar as cases wherein an employee may have worked for a lessor duration during one year, Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay), Rules, 2009 would cover cases of employees who have worked for six months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st July, and would also be entitled for the increment. All those Petitioners who have worked for six months and above in a particular year, would be entitled for the benefits of the annual increment and their retirement dues would be calculated by reckoning such increment while calculating their last drawn wages.” 3. Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners before this Court are exactly identical in situation to the petitioners who were before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. The petitioners are entitled for monetary benefits/difference of pensionary 3 107 wp 7477.26.odt..odt benefits from their respective dates of superannuation because they have worked for six months or more in the last year up to their superannuation. 4. Shri V.A.Thakre, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 6/State, SO far as the pronouncement of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, so also by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is concerned, admits the aforesaid legal position. However, so far as the entitlement of the present petitioners is concerned, Shri V.A. Thakre, learned AGP submits that it needs to be verified by the respondents before granting such benefit. 5. Shri S.S. Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioners invites our attention to the representation dated 01.08.2026 submitted by the petitioners before the respondent-authorities for such verification of their claim and for grant of benefits as claimed, if they are found entitled. The aforesaid representation is at record page-No.65 Annexure-4. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though such representation was submitted, since the respondents have done nothing in the matter, the petitioners have approached this Court. 7. In view of above, we dispose of writ petition as per following order:- (a) Respondent No.6-Divisional Joint Director of Agricultural, Amravati is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation dated 01.08.2026 which is at record page No. 65 Annexure 4 within stipulated period of six weeks from today. (b) Respondent No.6 shall verify the service record of the present petitioners and if they had worked for more than six months in the last year up to their superannuation, the petitioners would be entitled for monetary benefits/ difference of pensionary benefits as per the actual with effect from their respective dates of superannuation. (c) The pensionary benefits of the petitioners would be re-calculated by including the annual increment in their last drawn salary prior to their 4 107 wp 7477.26.odt..odt superannuation and such re-calculated pensionary benefits shall be payable to them. (d) Arrears, if any, shall be paid to them within a period of ninety days. Many of the petitioners have approached belatedly before this Court and therefore akin to the orders passed in several matters, they would not be entitled for the interest component. (e) If the decision is adverse to the petitioners, the respondent no.6 is directed to communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of such decision. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) manisha Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 30/09/2026 10:50:25