1 911.WP.8740.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8740 OF 2026 ASHOK MANIKRAO KHEDKAR AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Vaibhav U. Pawar AGP for Respondent/State : Ms. V.S. Chaudhari Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : Mr. S.P. Shah … CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 06.08.2026 PER COURT: 1. Leave is granted to carry out the correction in the chart mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the petition. 2. By this petition the petitioners - District Court employees, are seeking following reliefs : “a) The Writ Petition may kindly be allowed. b) This Hon'ble court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature thereby directing to the Respondent No. 4 and 5 to Grant Notional Annual Increment to petitioners which was due on 1st July i.e. after retirement of the petitioners, as petitioners served with good conduct more than 6 Months in a year. c) This Hon'ble court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature thereby directing to the Respondents No. 4 and 5 to 2026:BHC-AUG:34907-DB 2 911.WP.8740.26.odt recalculate retirement benefit by including annual increment and thereof to pay all the retirement benefit to petitioners with arrears within stipulated time period and for that purpose this Hon'ble Court may pass necessary order or direction in favor of the petitioners. d) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition to direct the Respondent No. 4 and 5 to grant retirement benefit including annual increment which was due on after retirement of the petitioners. e) Grant ad-interim relief in terms of Prayer Clause "d" may kindly be granted. f) Any other just and equitable relief which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit in the interest of justice may kindly be granted” 3. Learned advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance on several orders passed by this Court at Principal Seat, at Aurangabad Bench and Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, particularly, the order passed by this Court at Principal Seat in Writ Petition No.15662/2025 on 18.03.2026 and also the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6396/2020 on 24.06.2021, Writ Petition No.14632/2021 and connected matters on 04.05.2022, Writ Petition No.8224/2022 dated 11.08.2022, and Writ Petition No.8366/2026 on 28.07.2026 and the order passed by the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur in Writ Petition No.2163/2026 on 17.06.2026, in Writ Petition (ST) No.5115/2026 on 25.06.2026 and in Writ Petition No.6012/2026 decided on 28.07.2026, wherein, the District Court employees were granted similar relief as is prayed by the petitioners herein by relying on earlier orders. 3 911.WP.8740.26.odt 4. Learned advocate for the petitioners further points out that in the common order passed in Writ Petition No.14632/2021 and connected matters, this Court has observed as follows : “2. In all these petitions, the issue that has been raised by the petitioners is as regards the notional addition of an annual increment, while computing their pension and pensionary benefits. Such increment became due and payable one day after their superannuation. This issue has been considered and decided by this Court [Coram : Ravindra V. Ghuge & Avinash G. Gharote, JJ.] by order dated 24th June, 2021 in Writ Petition No.6396 of 2020 filed by Prakash Tulshiram Chaudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. This order was assailed by the State of Maharashtra before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 206 of 2022. The Hon’ble Apex Court [Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari] passed an order on 12.01.2022 concluding as under:- “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.” 5. The petitioners, therefore, pray for the same relief as is granted by this Court to the similarly situated petitioners. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the High Court Registry vehemently opposed the petition stating that Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay), Rules, 2009 is a transitory provision and the same needs to be considered in the proper perspective. He therefore submits that respondents may be granted time to file reply. 4 911.WP.8740.26.odt 7. The issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by the several decisions referred to hereinabove, rendered by this Court. This Court at Principal Seat in the decision rendered in Writ Petition No.15662/2025 and connected writ petitions has held thus: “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.” 8. In view of the above, we are not inclined to grant time to the respondents to file reply. Since the argument advanced by the respondents is already covered and the challenge raised by the State to the similar orders is negatived by the Apex Court, for the reasons stated in the orders referred to hereinabove, writ petition is partly allowed with following directions : (a) The Petitioners would be entitled for monetary benefits/difference of pensionary benefits as per the actuals w.e.f. from their respective dates of superannuation, provided they have worked for 6 months or more in the last year up to their superannuation. (b) The pensionary benefits of the Petitioners would be recalculated by including the annual increment in their last 5 911.WP.8740.26.odt drawn salary prior to their superannuation and such recalculated pensionary benefits shall be payable to them. (c) Arrears if any, shall be paid to them within a period of 90 days. Many of the Petitioners have approached belatedly before this Court and, therefore, akin to the orders passed in several matters, they would be not entitled for the interest component. (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) habeeb/