Advocates:
['DESHPANDE GAURAV L', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'SHINDE C K', 'Govt Pleader']

{1}

920 sr.no..odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 4016 OF 2021

Shahaji s/o. Kisanrao Kale

Age 59 years, Occupation,

Retired Assistant Superintendent

District Court, Osmanabad,

R/o. Swami Samarth Mandir,

Shahu Nagar, Osmanabad.

.. Petitioner.

Versus

1.

State of Maharashtra

Department of Law & Judiciary,

Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.

The Principal Secretary

Law and Judiciary Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai.

3.

The Principal District Judge, Osmanabad

(Administrative Capacity) District Court,

Osmanabad.

4.

Accountant General (A & E) – II , Nagpur,

Through its Account Officer,

Pay Verification Unit Department,

Nagpur.

5.

Accountant General

Through its Account Officer

Pay Verification Unit

Department Aurangabad.

.. Respondents.

{2}

920 sr.no..odt

Mr. Gaurav L. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner

Mr. P.G. Borade, AGP for respondent No.1 and 2

Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.3.

. . .

CORAM : C.V. BHADANG &

SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

DATE : 22 JUNE, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER C.V. BHADANG, J]:-

This petition can be disposed of on a short count. The

petitioner was appointed as a Junior clerk in the Judicial establishment

at Tuljapur in the year 1989. In the year 2004, the petitioner was

promoted as a Senior Clerk and in 2014, he was further promoted as

Assistant Superintendent.

2.

According to the petitioner, the date of increment of the

petitioner happens to be 1^st July of every year. The petitioner retired

on 30^th June, 2020. However, while forwarding the pension papers,

the increment which was due on 1^st July, 2020 was not taken into

consideration. The petitioner made a representation dated 21^st

January, 2020 which was rejected on 30^th June, 2020. Hence, this

petition.

3.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

respondent No.3 as well as learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2

and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

{3}

920 sr.no..odt

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance

on the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 5864 of 2019 in the matter

of Pandurang Dhumne and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others

decided on 2.3.2022 ( Nagpur Bench), in which a similar issue had

arisen. This Court has noted that only because incumbents were not

in service as on 1^st July, they were declined the benefits of said annual

increment and consequently, pay, pension and other retiral benefits are

fixed on a disadvantageous position. The Division Bench of this

Court has inter alia held that salary increment typically represent a

portion of what an employee earns in a year. Thus, in view of the fact

that, the employee had worked in the whole year i.e. 1^st July, 2019 to

30^th June, 2020, the petitioners therein were held entitled to

increment payable on 1.7.2020.

5.

We are in agreement with the view taken by the Division

Bench in Pandurang Dhumane (supra).

In such circumstances, the

petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (C) and (D), which read

thus :-

“C.

It be declared that the petitioner though retired on

30.6.2020 is entitled for the increment fell due on

1.7.2020 thereby declaring the petitioner has one full

year’s service on 30.6.2020.

D.

The respondents may kindly be directed to refix the

pay of the petitioner considering one increment on

30.6.2020 thereby be directed to pay the arrears

calculated after re-fixation.”

{4}

920 sr.no..odt

6.

The concerned authorities shall forward pension papers of

the petitioner, as expeditiously