39-WP-2302-2015 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2302 OF 2015 (Ramdas Sadashivrao Hedau & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) WITH WRIT PETITION NOS. 2303 AND 2427 OF 2015 __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. P.B. Patil, Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondents/State. ..... CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 On 20/7/2017, following order was passed : “When these writ petitions were admitted, we had recorded in our order dated 22.9.2015 that the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench on which the petitioners have based their claims in these writ petitions was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the said judgment was stayed. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the Special Leave Petition is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and since there is a stay to the judgment on which the petitioners have relied on, the writ petitions need to be adjourned. In view of the aforesaid statement, stand over after four months.” 2] On previous date, we had directed the petitioners to place before us the status of the SLP referred to in the said order. 3] The Counsel for the petitioners has tendered across the bar order dated 11/10/2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which reads as under : 2026:BHC-NAG:12865-DB 39-WP-2302-2015 2 “When the benefit has been given of the pay scale on 01.01.2006, the persons who had retired up to 26.02.2009 could not have been deprived of the benefit of revised salary for purpose of pension which was to be paid to them. In view of the aforesaid and also agreeing with the reasoning employed by the High Court, we are not inclined to interfere. The special leave petitions are dismissed.” 4] Thus, the Supreme Court held that for the purpose of pension payable to persons, like petitioners, the benefit of revised salary should be extended. The finding of the High Court has been, accordingly, upheld. 5] As noted in the order dated 20/7/2017, the petitioners have based their claim in terms of the judgment dated 9/5/2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad. There is no dispute on this point. 6] That being so, and since the Supreme Court has upheld the aforesaid judgment, we do not find any reason to not extend the benefit of the said judgment to the petitioners. 7] Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in the judgment dated 9/5/2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 8985/2011 with connected petitions, the petitions are allowed. The respondents shall extend the benefit in terms of the said judgment, if there is no other legal impediment. 8] Necessary steps be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from today. 39-WP-2302-2015 3 9] The petitions are disposed of in terms of above. (NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Sumit Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 29/09/2026 16:30:07