JAYANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(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 30/6/2018 and the other on 31/7/2018. 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, according to the petitioners, ought to be reckoned for the purpose of their revised pension with effect from 1/1/2016, i.e., the date from which the 7th Pay Commission is stated to have been implemented. The petitioners assail the action of respondent No. 2 to the extent it denies them 35% NPA in the computation of retiral benefits and further seek a declaration that the stipulation contained in clause (2) of the Government Resolution dtd. 14/10/2024, whereby the State extended the benefit of 35% NPA to medical officers but fixed the effective date as 1/1/2019, is illegal, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. The consequential relief sought is to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant the benefit of that Government Resolution from 1/1/2016, modify the said clause (2), and revise the petitioners' pensionary benefits by reckoning 35% NPA with interest from the date of their retirement.