Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ
Dr. Jayant S/o. Dagdu Kotkar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge denial of npa for pension calculation. (Para 3) |
| 2. the court examines the legality of effective dates for benefits. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. judicial review does not substitute policy decision dates. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. refusal to grant retrospective benefits upheld. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.
2. These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , being Writ Petition No.56 of 2026 and Writ Petition No.65 of 2026, raise a common challenge and hence are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The petitioners are medical officers who served under the Zilla Parishad set-up and retired upon attaining the age of superannuation, one on 30.06.2018 and the other on 31.07.2018. It is not in dispute that the 7th Pay Commission benefits were extended to them for the purpose of pay fixation during service and for revision of pensionary benefits after retirement. The dispute is confined to the non-practicing allowance (NPA) at the rate of 35%, which,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
