Mohammad Isak Mohammad Sharif And Others v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Rural Devpt. And Water Conservation Dept., Mumbai And ORS

2025:BHC-NAG:8202-DB 1 903.wp.785.23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 785/2023 Mohammad Isak Mohammad Sharif and Ors.

Vs.

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A. R. Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioners. Ms K. P. Marpakwar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. Mr. S. S. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.6 and 7. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI,JJ.

DATED : 19/08/2025.

1.

A limited grievance raised in the present petition is about grant of increment. It is pointed out that this matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Pandurang Vithobaji Dhumne and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2022 (4) Mh.L.J. 270 as well as Government Resolution dated 28.06.2023. 2.

The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 is not disputing the above referred legal position. 3.

This Court in the case of Pandurang (supra) has held that the uniform date of annual increment is 1st July of every year and the petitioners despite rendering one full year of service and superannuated on 30th June in different years, not granted annual increment only because they had retired on 30th June of their respective years. It is further held that entitlement of annual increment is completion of one year service, prior to date of annual increment. 4.

In the light of the above referred well settled principles of law, since in this petition also, the petitioners worked for complete one year and retired on 30th June in

2 903.wp.785.23 different years, they are entitled to receive the annual increment.

5.

Accordingly, we dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondents to grant annual increment to the petitioners, if there is no other legal impediment.

6.

No order as to costs.

(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) RGurnule.