Bombay High Court
Bhargave Tulshidas Patil And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Sec. The Dept. ... on 11 November, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:48498-DB
72-WP-15080-2025-(C).odt
SUNNY
Digitally signed
by SUNNY
ANKUSHRAO
ANKUSHRAO THOTE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
THOTE Date: 2025.11.13
10:20:13 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15080 OF 2025
1. Bhargave Tulshidas Patil
Age : 56 Yrs., Occ.: Service
R/o. Post Alibaug, Tal. Alibaug,
Dist. Raigad.
2. Rajan Moru Rahul
Age : 65 Yrs., Occ.: Retired
R/o. Post Alibaug, Tal. Alibaug,
Dist. Raigad.
3. Shailesh Subhas Jadhav
Age:50 Yrs., Occupation: Service
R/o. Post Alibaug, Tal. Alibaug,
Dist. Raigad.
4. Harishchandra Moru Patil
Age: 72 Yrs., Occupation: Retired
R/o. Post Alibaug, Tal. Alibaug,
Dist. Raigad.
5. Keshav Mahadev Gharat
Age: 68 Yrs., Occupation: Retired
R/o. Post Alibaug, Tal. Alibaug,
Dist. Raigad.
6. Arun Ramchandra Jadhav
Age: 67 Yrs., Occupation: Retired
R/o. At Post Alibaug, Tal. Alibaug,
Dist. Raigad
7. Sadanand Pandurang Mhatre
Age: 64 Yrs., Occupation: Retired
R/o. At Post Alibaug, Tal. Alibaug,
Dist. Raigad
8. Ramesh Vasudev Koli
Age: 63 Yrs., Occupation: Retired
R/o. At Post Shrivardhan, Tal. Shrivardhan,
Dist. Raigad
SUNNY THOTE 1 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:28:33 :::
72-WP-15080-2025-(C).odt
9. Sudhir Krishna Joshi
Age: 60 Yrs., Occupation: Retired
R/o. Post Khalapur, Tal. Mangaon,
Dist. Raigad
10. Dhanaji Sitharam Jadhav
Age: 60 Yrs., Occupation: Retired
R/o. Post Panvel, Tal. Alibaug,
Dist. Raigad. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
The Department of General Administration
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Raigad,
District: Raigad ...Respondents
Mr. Sachin Gawade i/by Mr. Mahesh V. Rawool, Advocate for the
Petitioners.
Mr. V.G. Badgujar, AGP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 11th NOVEMBER, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by the consent of the parties.
SUNNY THOTE 2 of 8
72-WP-15080-2025-(C).odt
2. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits, on
instructions, that the challenge to the Government Resolutions
(G.R.) dated 24th August, 2017 and 15th December 2022, is not
being pressed. The Petitioners pray that relief in terms of the
existing G.R.s, which are considered in the final order dated 3 rd
December 2024, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 19 of
2024 (Shivram Shantaram More & Ors. v/s. State of Maharashtra &
Ors.), be granted.
3. The learned A.G.P. submits that if the Petitioners are
challenging the two G.R.s, the State will have to file an affidavit in
reply.
4. Since the Petitioners are seeking relief in the light of
the order dated 3rd December, 2024 in Shivram Shantaram More
(Supra), and are not pressing their prayers against the GRs, the
Petition can be disposed off in terms of the said order.
5. The Petitioners are identically placed. All of them refer
to the Government Resolution dated 24th August, 2017 insofar as
grant of advance increment is concerned. By the said Government
Resolution, a decision was taken not to continue with the benefit of
SUNNY THOTE 3 of 8
72-WP-15080-2025-(C).odt
advance increment during the 6th Pay Commission regime in
between 1st October, 2006 to 1st October, 2015.
6. In various Judgments of this Court, it was consistently
held that the Government Resolution dated 24th August 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 24th August, 2017, it was earlier directed by a Circular
dated 3rd July, 2009, to undertake the exercise of pay fixation as per
the 6th Pay Commission Pay Scales without taking into
consideration the advance increments.
7. By Judgment and order dated 30th August 2022, this
Court has rejected the Review Petitions after considering all the
objections raised by the State Government. It was held that, no
specific instructions were issued before 24th August, 2017 for
discontinuation of the scheme of advance increments. Paragraph
Nos.12 to 15 of the Judgment and order dated 30 th August, 2022,
SUNNY THOTE 4 of 8
72-WP-15080-2025-(C).odt
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 :
"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.
13. 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 @ 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.
SUNNY THOTE 5 of 8
72-WP-15080-2025-(C).odt
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.
14. 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 avail.
15. We have carefully gone through the Government
Resolution dated 24.08.2017 and Circular dated
SUNNY THOTE 6 of 8
72-WP-15080-2025-(C).odt
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 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
SUNNY THOTE 7 of 8
72-WP-15080-2025-(C).odt
dated 27.08.2017 would only have prospective
effect."
8. 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 24th August, 2017 and that,
such decision would only operate prospectively.
9. This Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed off with the
declaration that the Government Resolution dated 24th August, 2017,
would apply prospectively. The Petitioners in these Petition are held
to be eligible for grant of advance increments for outstanding work,
prior to 24th August, 2017. Since the Petitioners are not claiming
interest, the recovered amount shall be paid to the Petitioners within
a period of 45 days, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at
the rate of 6% from the date of recovery, till it is actually paid. All
consequential benefits be calculated by adding up the said advance
increments. Since the Petitioners have superannuated, all
consequential benefits post recalculation, be paid to the Petitioners
within 90 days.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
SUNNY THOTE 8 of 8
