Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.7248 OF 2026

1. The Maharashtra State Power

Generation Company Limited

2. Superintending Engineer, the

Maharashtra State Power General

Company Limited

3. Executive Engineer, the

Maharashtra State Power

Generation Company Limited ...Petitioners

V/s.

1. State of Maharashtra

2. Rajesh Eknath Edake ...Respondents

________________

Mr. Suresh Pakale, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.B. Pawar & Ms. Kinjal

Khandelwal i/b. M/s. KP Law Associates LLP for the Petitioners.

Mr. Ravindra Vishnu Laxmi Sankpal with Dr. C.V. Ambilwade for

Respondent No.2.

Mr. A.C. Bhadang, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.

________________

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Judgment reserved on: 23 JUNE 2026.

Judgment pronounced on: 07 JULY 2026.

JUDGMENT:

1)The Petitioner-Maharashtra State Power Generation Company

Limited (MSPGCL) is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24

Page No. 1 of 24

7 July 2026 2026:BHC-AS:27831

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

December 2025 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune in

Complaint (ULP) No.19 of 2025. The Industrial Court has partly allowed

the Complaint filed by Respondent No.2-Employee and has set aside the

order dated 24 October 2024 of re-fixing the pay of Respondent No.2

with further directions to re-fix his pay as per Annexure-3-Technical-

III/LDC and equivalent at Sr. No.45 to the Administrative Circular No.449

dated 5 October 2019 alongwith consequential benefits. The Industrial

Court also directed refund of recovered amount to Respondent No.2. In

short, the Industrial Court has set aside fixation of pay of Respondent

No.2 at Rs. 41,070/- w.e.f. 1 April 2018 and has directed the same to be

fixed at Rs.72,875/- w.e.f. 1 April 2018.

2)Petitioner No.1- MSPGCL is a Government Company engaged in

the business of power generation in the State of Maharashtra. Petitioner

Nos.2 and 3 are its officials. Respondent No.2 applied for appointment in

Petitioner No.1- MSPGCL on the post of Technician-3 against vacancy

reserved for ex-servicemen. The post of Technician-3 carried pay scale of

11275-28240. He was selected and appointed on the post of Technician-3

and joined on 25 November 2016 at Nashik Thermal Power Station. As

per the provisions of regulations applicable to Petitioner No.1, the pay of

Respondent No.2 was to be fixed considering his last pay at the time of

retirement from the military services. However, the pay of Respondent

No.2 was initially fixed in the minimum of the scale at Rs.11,275/- plus

two additional increments of Rs. 275 + Rs. 275 = 11,825.

3)Respondent No.2 thereafter produced last pay certificate issued by

Senior Record Officer on 6 November 2018 certifying that his basic pay

was Rs. 37,000 + class pay of Rs. 300 = 37,300/-. Respondent No. 2

Page No. 2 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

requested the Petitioner- MSPGCL to fix his pay as per the applicable

regulations. After continuous follow up by Respondent No.2, Chief

Engineer gave directions to the Superintendent Engineer on 10 March

2021 to fix the basic pay of Respondent No.2 at Rs. 28,240 + personal pay

of Rs.9060 so as to protect last pay drawn in Military Services at

Rs.37,300/-. Accordingly, the pay fixation of Respondent No.2 was

sanctioned as Rs. 28,240/- basic pay + Rs. 9,060/- personal pay (total of

Rs.37,300/-) from the date of his appointment as Technician-3.

4)Pay revision in respect of employees and officers of MSPGCL w.e.f.

1 April 2018 was effected vide Administrative Circular No.449 dated 5

October 2019, under which pay scale for the post of Technician-3 was

revised from 11275-28240 to 29035-72875. Under Annexure-III to the

said Administrative Circular, the corresponding basic pay for Rs.28,240/-

was indicated at Rs.72,875/-. Accordingly, by order dated 22 September

2021, revised pay fixation of Respondent No.2 was granted as per

Administrative Circular dated 5 October 2019 fixing his basic pay at

Rs.74,310/- w.e.f. 1 April 2018. It appears that higher fixation of basic pay

at Rs.74,310/- was made in case of Respondent No.2 on account of his

posting at Hydro Power Station in tribal area (Ghatghar), for which he

was entitled to the benefit of one-step higher pay. Respondent No.2 was

paid the arrears arising out of revision of his pay fixation. Upon his

transfer to Pawana Power Station, the benefit of one-step higher pay was

withdrawn and he was granted basic pay of Rs.72,875/- vide order dated

25 January 2022 corresponding to Sr.No. 45 in Annexure-III to the

Administrative Circular No.449 dated 5 October 2019.

Page No. 3 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

5)However, by order dated 17 August 2022, the Executive Engineer,

Panshet Division suddenly brought down the pay of Respondent No.2 at

Rs.37,360/- w.e.f. 1 August 2022 without any intimation to him.

Respondent No.2 submitted application dated 12 September 2022 asking

for details about re-fixation. He received copy of order dated 17 August

2022 on 3 September 2022. The Chairman and Managing Director of

Petitioner No.1-MSPGCL formulated a committee consisting of various

officials for deciding the issue of pay fixation in respect of Respondent

No.2 and another employee. The committee held hearing on 26 October

2023. However, Respondent No.2 was not communicated any outcome of

the same. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 learnt about rejection of his

request for retention of old pay as per Option Form -J by the committee.

The committee also directed HR Section and Accounts Section to jointly

audit the pay of Respondent No.2 and recover the excess payment. By

order dated 24 October 2024, Petitioners-MSPGCL carried out the

exercise of re-fixation of pay of Respondent No.2 and reduced his basic

pay to Rs.41,070/- w.e.f. 1 April 2018 directing recovery of excess pay.

6)Respondent No.2 got aggrieved by the action of the Petitioners in

reducing his basic pay as on 1 April 2018 from Rs.72,875/- to Rs.41,070/-

and filed Complaint (ULP) No.19 of 2025 before the Industrial Court,

Pune seeking following prayers:

(i)Declare that the Respondents have indulged in unfair labour

practices within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(ii)Direct the Respondents to fix the pay of the Complainant in

accordance with the directives issued vide MSPGCL Circular

No.5978 dated 01/07/2022 and Government Resolution No.पु

निवे

-२०१९/

प्र

/

क्र

.१६६/सेवा-

४दि३०

/

०८

/

२०१९

and to release the

salary of the Complainant accordingly.

Page No. 4 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

(iii)“To direct the Respondent to fix the pay of the Complainant in

accordance with the prescribed method of fixation of pay in the

revised pay scales and to pay the arrears as directed vide

Administrative Circular No.449 dated 5 October 2019 and

Administrative Circular No.546 dated 09/08/2024, with effect

from 01/04/2018 and 01/04/2023 respectively, as has been done

in case of similarly placed other employees of the Company”.

(iv)Direct the Respondents to immediately cease and desist from

any recovery being made from the salary of the Complainant, in

accordance with the provisions of Government Resolution

No.

वेतन

-१०१८/

प्र

.

क्र

.३४/

सेवा

-

३दि

.१७/०८/२०२३.

(v)Direct the Respondents to refund the amounts recovered from

the salary of the Complainant during the months of October

2024, November 2024, and December 2024 alongwith interest

thereon @ 12% per annum.

(vi)Grant interim relief to the Complainant in terms of prayer

clause (iii) of the prayer.

7)Respondent No.2 prayed for interim stay on recovery. By order

dated 20 February 2025, the Industrial Court restrained Petitioners-

MSPGCL from making any recovery in pursuance of order dated 24

October 2024. Petitioners challenged the interim order dated 20

February 2025 by filing Writ Petition (stamp) No. 13338 of 2025, which

was disposed of on 22 April 2025 without interfering in the interim order

of stay.

8)The Petitioners-MSPGCL resisted the Complaint by filing written

statement. Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. By

judgment and order dated 24 December 2025, the Industrial Court has

partly allowed the Complaint by issuing following directions:

(i)The complaint is partly allowed.

(ii)The respondents are hereby declared to have engaged in unfair

labour practice under item 9 of Sch.IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971

Page No. 5 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

and is directed to cease and desist from engaged the same

forthwith.

(iii)The order of respondents of re-fixing the pay scale of the

complainant bearing No.0819 dt.24/10/2024 is hereby quashed and

set aside and the respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of the

complainant as per Annexure-3-Technician-III/LDC and

Equivalent at sr. no.45 to the Administrative Circular No.449 dated

05/10/2019 and to grant all benefits thereof to the complainant.

(iv)If recovery from the pay of the complainant has already been made

by the respondents the same shall be refunded to the complainant

after making correct pay fixation of the complainant as per this

order.

(v)No order as to cost.

(vi)This order to take effect after three months.

9)The Petitioners-MSPGCL are aggrieved by the judgment and order

dated 24 December 2025 passed by the Industrial Court and have filed

the present Petition.

10)Mr. Pakale, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

Petitioners submits that the Industrial Court has grossly erred in

allowing the Complaint of Respondent No.2 and not directing re-fixation

of his pay. That the Industrial Court has erroneously set aside order

dated 24 October 2024, which was never challenged by Respondent No.2.

That Respondent No.2 also did not challenge the decision of High Power

Committee (HPC) directing reduction of his basic pay. That the

Respondent acquiesced in the pay fixation dated 24 October 2024 and

gave up claim for fixation of basic pay of Rs.72,875/- by submitting

compromise form vide letter dated 1 January 2025. That having given up

claim for fixation of basic pay of Rs.72,875/-, Respondent No.2 could not

have turned around and filed complaint of unfair labour practice before

Page No. 6 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

the Labour Court. That there is no averment in the entire complaint as to

how unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair

Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the MRTU & PULP Act) is committed by the

Petitioners.

11)Mr. Pakale further submits that Respondent No.2 cannot be

permitted to take undue advantage of his status as ex-serviceman. That

various instructions issued, both by Petitioner No.1 as well as by State

Government, ensure that ‘ex-serviceman’ does not receive pay less than

the one drawn by him while leaving Military Services. That Respondent

No.2 was drawing pay of Rs.37,300/- while leaving Military Services and

on that count, his basic pay was fixed at last scale of pay scale of

Rs.28240 in addition to granting him personal pay of Rs.9,060. That

otherwise Respondent No.2 was entitled to receive basic pay of only

Rs.11,275/- as newly appointed Technician-3. That what was granted to

him was merely pay protection and not pay fixation. That therefore the

special benefit extended to him in the form of pay protection cannot

form the basis for his fixation in revised scale pursuant to Administrative

Circular dated 5 October 2019. That while fixing the pay in revised pay

scale of Rs.29035-72875 the Petitioners have ensured that he does not

get paid lesser wages than the one drawn by him in Military Services.

That therefore, the Petitioners rightly fixed his basic pay at Rs.41,070/-

as on 1 April 2018, by taking into consideration his basic pay at the time

of initial appointment as Rs.39,270/- (military pay of 37360 + two

increments of 955 + 955 = 39,270/-). That Petitioners have ensured that

at no point of time, pay of Respondent No.2 fell below the military pay.

He submits that Respondent No.2 is not entitled to receive

Page No. 7 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

corresponding pay of Rs.72,875/- since Rs.28,240/- was not granted to

him by way of ‘pay fixation’, but the same was granted to him only for

the purpose of ‘pay protection’. That the Industrial Court has completely

overlooked this position and has erroneously allowed the Complaint filed

by Respondent No.2. He prays for setting aside the impugned judgment

and order passed by the Industrial Court.

12)Per contra, Mr. Sankpal, the learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.2 opposes the Petition and supports the judgment and

order passed by the Industrial Court. He submits that the Industrial

Court has properly analysed the entire material on record for arriving at

a conclusion that Respondent No.2 is entitled to receive corresponding

basic pay of Rs.72,875/- on account of grant of basic pay of Rs.28,240/- to

him. That Administrative Circular dated 5 October 2019 itself provides

for grant of corresponding basic pay of Rs.72,875/- by way of fitment

benefit. He submits that if Respondent No.2 is paid entry level pay in the

scale meant for post of Technician-3, the entire effect of 20 years of

service put in by him would be wiped out. That once the pay is protected

by performing pay fixation, such protected pay forms the basis of grant

of consequential benefits upon pay revision. He submits that the pay of

Respondent No.2 was arbitrarily reduced without any notice and without

any basis. He submits that representation dated 1 January 2025 was

made only as a suggestion for avoiding litigation. That since Respondent

No.2 was driven to litigation, he had subsequently withdrawn the offer

made vide letter dated 1 January 2025. He submits that no interference is

warranted in well considered decision of the Industrial Court. He prays

for dismissal of the Petition.

Page No. 8 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

13)Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for my

consideration.

14)Present case involves a unique conundrum where Respondent

No.2 received the benefit of pay protection on account of his Military

Service and received the benefit of fixation of basic pay of Rs.28,240/-

(last stage in the pay scale of Technician-3 of Rs. 11275-28240 ) in

addition to personal pay of Rs.9060/- from the date of his appointment

i.e. 25 November 2016. This was done to ensure that he does not receive

pay less than his military pay of Rs. 37,300/-. Otherwise, his journey on

the post of Technician-3 ought to have begun in basic pay of Rs.11,275/-

only (beginning of the payscale). Petitioner-MSPGCL undertook the

exercise of revision of pay scale, which it apparently undertaken

periodically at interval of five years, by issuing Administrative Circular

dated 5 October 2019, under which the pay scale of the post of

Technician-3 was revised from 11275-28240 to 29035-72875. Annexure

III to the said Circular contains a Fitment Table, which reflected revised

basic pay for Rs.28,240 as Rs. 72,875. Respondent No.2 expected that

since he was directed basic pay of Rs.28,240/-, he would receive revised

basic of Rs.72,875. This was indeed granted to him vide order dated 22

September 2021. However, subsequently the said pay fixation has been

withdrawn vide order dated 24 October 2024 and his basic pay is brought

down to Rs. 41,070/- w.e.f. 1 April 2018.

15)Petitioner-MSPGCL believes that the benefit of higher pay granted

to Respondent No.2 in the form of ‘pay protection’ on account of his

Military Service cannot form the basis for determination of his revised

pay in the fitment table of Administrative Circular dated 5 October 2019.

Page No. 9 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

As noted above, the Petitioner-MSPGCL draws distinction between the

concepts of ‘pay protection’ and ‘pay fixation’. It believes that the higher

pay granted to Respondent No. 2 to protect his military pay cannot form

the basis for further jumping in the new pay structure introduced w.e.f. 1

April 2018.

16)On the other hand, insistence of Respondent No.2 is that since he

drew the basic pay of Rs. 28,240 as on 31 March 2018, the corresponding

basic pay of Rs. 72,875/- indicated in the fitment table contained in

Annexure-III to Administrative Circular dated 5 October 2019 must be

extended to him.

17)In the light of the above rival positions taken by the parties, the

short issue that fell for consideration before the Industrial Court, and

which again arises for determination by this Court, is whether the basic

pay granted to Respondent No.2 of Rs.28,240/- can be considered for

grant of corresponding basic pay of Rs.72,875/- in terms of Annexure-III

to Administrative Circular dated 5 October 2019? To paraphrase, the

issue is whether the Petitioner-MSPGCL can ignore the benefit of pay

protection (Rs. 28,240) granted to Respondent No. 2 and instead of

granting him corresponding basic pay of Rs. 72,875/-, can it fix his

revised pay w.e.f. 1 April 2018 by taking into consideration his last drawn

military pay of Rs. 37,300?

18)Petitioners have denied the benefit of new pay structure to

Respondent No. 2 on the ground that corresponding pay fixation in the

revised pay structure (Rs. 72,875/-) on the basis of the pay protection

granted to him (Rs. 28,240/-) results in a windfall gain for him.

Page No. 10 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

Therefore, the Petitioners have withdrawn the pay fixation granted to

Respondent No. 2 in basic pay of Rs. 72,875/- and have fixed his basic pay

at Rs. 37,360 (last drawn military pay) w.e.f. 1 April 2018.

19)The Industrial Court has held that Respondent No. 2 is entitled to

draw corresponding basic pay of Rs. 72,875/- w.e.f. 1 April 2018.

Correctness of decision of the Industrial Court is the subject matter of

challenge involved in the present Petition.

20)Respondent No.2 was discharged from Military Service after

completion of his full tenure. He was not discharged on medical grounds

or any other grounds before completion of the tenure. Accordingly, he

became entitled for fixation of his basic pay upon re-employment in a

time scale equal to the last pay drawn in Military Service under clause

28(b)(ii) of MSPGCL Employees’ Service Regulations. The relevant part

of the Regulations reads thus:

Clause-28(b)(ii)-In the case of Junior Commissioned Officers and

below-pay on re-employment shall be fixed at a stage in the time scale

which is equal to the last pay drawn (i.e. basic pay other than

allowances of any kind) ignoring the pensionary benefits.

Clause-28(b)(iii)- The provisions as above are, however, not applicable

to the ex-servicemen who have retired earlier or who have been

discharged on medical grounds or any other ground before completion

of the period entitling them to the provisionary benefits but after

completion of their specific bond period and to those who are not in

receipt of any regular pension.

Thus, the benefit of pay protection is available only for those ex-

servicemen, who complete their full tenure of Military Service. In the

present case, there is no dispute about the entitlement of Respondent

No. 2 to receive pay protection under Clause 28(b)(ii) of the Regulations.

Page No. 11 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

21)The Government of Maharashtra has issued Government

Resolution dated 30 August 2019, which also provides for pay fixation of

ex-servicemen retiring after 01-01-2016 as per his pay fixed in 7

th

pay

commission and that if there is no stage in the pay scale as per his final

pay, his pay shall be fixed at next level to the final pay and remaining pay

shall be granted as personal pay. Relevant part of the GR dated 30 August

2019 provides thus:

३अदिनांक १ जानेवारी

,

२०१६ रोजीकिंवा त्यानंतर सैनिकी सेवेतूनसेवानिवृत्त होऊन

राज्याच्यानागरी सेवेत पुनर्नियुक्त झालेल्या माजी सैनिकांची वेतननिश्चिती सैनिकी सेवेतून

निवृत्त होताना त्यांची सातव्या वेतनआयोगानुसारनिश्चित झालेल्या अंतिम वेतनावरच

(मूळ

वेतन

+

गुड सर्विस पे

/जी.सी.बी.

पे

+

क्लास पे

/

क्लास अलाऊं स

+

एक्स ग्रुप पे

) करण्यात

यावी.

मात्र अंतिम वेतनाइतका टप्पा वेतनस्तरामध्येनसेल तर

,

अंतिम वेतनाच्या

लगतच्या खालच्या वेतनटप्प्यावर वेतननिश्चिती करण्यात यावी आणिउर्वरीत वेतन

वैयक्तिक वेतनम्हणूनमंजूर करण्यात यावे

.

सदर वैयक्तिक वेतनपुढील वेतनवाढीमध्ये

समायोजित करण्यात यावे

.

सदर वैयक्तिक वेतनसर्वप्रयोजनार्थमूळ वेतनाचा भाग

समजण्यात येईल

.

माजी सैनिकनागरी सेवेत ज्या पदावरनियुक्त झाला आहे

,

त्या पदासाठीविहीत

के लेल्या वेतनस्तरातील कमाल वेतनापेक्षा सैनिकी सेवेतील अंतिम मूळ वेतनजास्त

असेल,

तर

...

यादोन्हीमधील फरक वैयक्तिवेतनम्हणूनद्यावे आणित्या पदाच्याकिमान

वेतनापेक्षा सैनिकी सेवेतील अंतिम मूळ वेतनकमी असेल तर

,

त्या पदाच्या वेतनस्तरातील

किमानवेतनावर त्याची वेतननिश्चिती करावी

.

22)As per the last pay certificate issued by Senior Record Officer in

the Military Services on 6 November 2018, Respondent No.2 drew basic

military pay of Rs.37000 + class pay of Rs.300 =37300. It therefore

became incumbent for the Petitioners to fix the basic pay of Respondent

No.2 at the level of Rs.37300. The pay scale of Technician-3 at the time

of appointment of Respondent No.2 in MSPGCL was Rs. 11275-28240.

Therefore, basic pay of Respondent No.2 was fixed at Rs. 28,240/-, at the

last stage of the pay scale. To protect his last military pay of Rs. 37,360/-,

the balance amount of Rs.9,060/- was paid to him as personal pay with a

Page No. 12 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

view to ensure that total of the two was Rs.37,300/-. From the date of

appointment i.e. 25 November 2016 till 31 March 2018 (day before

implementation of new pay structure), Respondent No.2 drew basic pay

of Rs.28,240/-. It appears that he got posted at a tribal area (Ghatghar

Hydro Power Station) on 15 March 2017 and became entitled to draw one

step higher scale of Rs.11675-31975, on account of which he did draw

higher basic pay of Rs.31,975/- from 14 March 2017 till 31 March 2018.

However, this aspect needs to be ignored for avoiding confusion. This

Court therefore proceeds on a footing that Respondent No.2 was drawing

basic pay of Rs. 28240/- during 25 November 2016 to 31 March 2018.

23)MSPGCL made applicable revised pay structure in its

establishment w.e.f. 1 April 2018 and Administrative Circular dated 5

October 2019 was issued for implementing the same. The pay scale of the

post of Technician-3 got revised as Rs.29035-72875. As observed above,

the fitment table at Annexure-III of Administrative Circular dated 5

October 2019 indicated revised basic pay of Rs.72,875/- for earlier basic

pay of Rs.28,240/-. Relevant part of the Fitment Table is as under:

Existing Pay Scale Revised Pay Scale

11275-275-12650-370-16350-410-28240 29035-710-32585-955-42135-1060-

72875

Sr.No. Stages(Old) DA

Component

125% of CoL

No.2

32.50

% of

Col

No.2

Total of Col. No.2,3

and 4

Fitment in

New Scale

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

45. 28240 35300 9178 72718 72875

24)The Petitioner-MSPGCL contends that though the revised basic

pay for the stage of Rs.28,240/- is indeed reflected as Rs.72,875/- in the

Page No. 13 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

fitment table, Respondent No.2 is not entitled to draw the same w.e.f. 1

April 2018. This is premised on a principle that the basic pay of

Rs.28,240/- was never granted to Respondent No.2 as by way of ‘pay

fixation’ but the same was granted merely by way of ‘pay protection’. In

my view, it makes no difference as to how Respondent No.2 started

drawing basic pay of Rs.28,240/-. The fact remains that his fixation was

done in the pay scale of Rs.11275-28240 at the last stage of Rs.28,240/-.

He drew that basic pay for almost two years. Therefore, he is entitled to

draw corresponding basic pay of Rs.72,875/- upon introduction of new

pay structure w.e.f. 1 April 2018.

25)Petitioners are apparently treating fixation of basic pay of

Respondent No.2 at Rs.72,875/- as a windfall gain. To my mind, it is not a

windfall gain, but a natural consequence of introduction of new structure

by the employer. The Petitioners themselves offered revised basic pay of

Rs.72,875/- to every employee drawing basic pay of Rs.28,240/-. I

therefore, do not find any logic in selecting Respondent No.2 for hostile

discrimination merely because he received basic pay of Rs.28,240/- on

account of benefit of pay protection due to his past Military Service.

26)Administrative Circular dated 5 October 2019 plainly provides for

fixation of pay in the new pay scale at corresponding stage. The

Industrial Court has discussed the relevant part of the Administrative

Circular in its judgment, which is as under:

"Administrative Circular No.449 dt.05/10/2019 provides that in Clause

(B) Fixation of Initial Pay in the Revised Pay Scales w.e.f. 1/04/2018.

The initial basic pay of an employees/officer appointed or

promoted prior to 1/04/2018 shall be fixed in the revised pay scale held

by him on officiating or permanent or temporary basis or in the revised

pay scale corresponding to the higher pay scale or grade allowed to him

Page No. 14 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

as personal due to grant of the benefit under the provisions of the G.O.

NO.74(P) dt.30/04/1974 read with Head Office Order

No.GAD/E-VI/STF/Gen/A/232/9203 dt.27/02/1975 or benefit of de-

stagnation measure under the G.O. No.111(P) dt. 13/05/1982 in the

following manner.

An amount equivalent to 32.50% (Thirty Two and point fifty

percent) of pre-revised basic pay as on 31st March 2018 and 125% (One

Hundred Twenty Five Percent) of Dearness allowance on pre-revised

basic pay as on 31st March 2018 and then the basic pay in the revised

scale shall be fixed w.e.f. 1/04/2018 as follows-

i. If the sum total of above is less than that of minimum of revised

scale of pay, the Basic pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the

revised scale of pay.

ii.If the sum total of is a stage in the revised pay scale, the Basic

pay shall be fixed at that stage.

iii.If the sum total of is not a stage in the revised pay scale, the

Basic pay shall be fixed at the next stage.

iv.If the sum total of is more than the maximum of the revised

scale, the basic pay shall be fixed at the maximum of that scale.

v.If an employee draws less pay on 1/04/2018 in the revised pay

scale in the promoted post/higher scale due to grant of

G.0.74/111(P) than the pay he would have drawn on 1/04/2018 in

the lower post/scale in the revised pay scale, his pay is to be

fixed in the lower post/scale in the revised pay scale in the first

instance and thereafter at the next immediate stage in the

higher post/pay scale as on 1/04/2018 as per S.R.29(a). His/her

future increments may be drawn as per normal rules by applying

the provisions as per S.R.32(b). If such re-fixation of pay is to

his/her advantage.

27)Thus, the Administrative Circular does not make any exception in

cases of ex-servicemen while making the pay fixation. The formula

prescribed therein and the Fitment Table appended thereto apply

uniformly to all the employees of MSPGCL. Appointment of the

Respondent No.2 as Technician-3 in the services of the Petitioners-

MSPGCL prior to implementation of the new pay structure is just a

Page No. 15 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

fortuitous circumstance. After he got appointed in Petitioners’ service

and once his pay got fixed, he became employee of MSPGCL and became

entitled to draw all benefits admissible to the employees of MSPGCL.

Petitioners cannot keep on tracing his originality as ex-serviceman and

keep on considering the last pay drawn by him in Military Service

forever. If Respondent No. 2 was to join the services of Petitioners after 1

April 2018, his pay could be fixed at Rs. 37,300/-, which is a stage

available in the revised pay scale of Rs.29035-72875. However, his

appointment is before coming into effect of the new pay structure.

Therefore, Petitioners cannot treat him as having been appointed after 1

April 2018 and fix his pay accordingly.

28)The artificial distinction sought to be drawn by the Petitioners in

‘pay fixation’ and ‘pay protection’ does not appeal to this Court. There is

no Government Resolution or even any Circular of the Petitioners which

provides that the pay protection would be available to the ex-serviceman

only till pay-scales are revised and that they would not be entitled to

corresponding pay fixation upon implementation of revised pay scales.

29)Also, Rs. 28,240/- is the ‘basic pay’ fixed for Respondent No. 2. It is

not a personal pay granted towards pay protection. He was granted

element of personal pay of Rs. 9,060/- to protect his last military pay of

Rs. 37,360/-. Thus, what needs to be ignored while performing the pay

fixation as per the Administrative Circular is only the ‘personal pay’ of

Rs. 9,060/- and not the ‘basic pay’ of Rs. 28,240/-. If the Petitioners

intended not to consider Rs. 28,240/- as the basis for grant of any future

benefits, they could have fixed basic pay of Respondent No. 2 at

Rs.11,275/- and could have treated the balance pay as personal pay. This

Page No. 16 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

is not done since it is impermissible in law to do so both under the

Petitioners’ Regulations as well as under the GR dated 30 August 2019.

On the other hand, Petitioners drew a conscious distinction between

‘basic pay’ and ‘personal pay’ and only the element of personal pay could

be ignored while performing pay fixation as per the Administrative

Circular dated 5 October 2019. Therefore, not taking into consideration

the basic pay of the Respondent No. 2 as on 31-03-2018 for re-fixation of

his pay w.e.f. 01-04-2018 is clearly illegal.

30)Logically speaking also, I do not find grant of fixation of basic pay

of Rs.72,875/- to Respondent No.2 as unjust in any manner. Mr. Pakale

has strenuously contended that Respondent No.2 was actually entitled to

draw basic pay of only Rs.11,275/- on being appointed as Technician-3

and that a mere arrangement was made to protect the pay on account of

applicable instructions by offering him basic pay of Rs.28,240/-. He

contends that the said pay of Rs.28,240/- granted by way of ‘pay

protection’ cannot form basis for fixation of revised pay in the new pay

structure. I am unable to agree. Even as on 25 November 2016,

Petitioners lived with the reality that Respondent No.2 drew almost two

and half times the basic pay than the one admissible to a new entrant on

the post of Technician-3. Even after 1 April 2018, entry pay for

Technician-3 is Rs.29,035 and therefore I find it difficult to comprehend

the heartburn caused to the Petitioners if Respondent No.2 draws two

and half times the entry pay at Rs.72,875/-. If Petitioners could bear

drawal of two and half times of entry pay in pre revised pay structure

upto 31 March 2018, they must bear the same reality even after 1 April

2018. If there is sudden jump in the basic pay of Respondent No.2 to

Rs.72,875/- it is on account of the policy decision taken by the

Page No. 17 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

Petitioners. It is Petitioners, who have decided that an employee drawing

basic pay of Rs.28,240/- as on 31 March 2018 should draw revised basic

pay of Rs.72,875/- w.e.f. 1 April 2018.

31) The action of the Petitioners in refixing the pay of Respondent

No.2 vide order dated 24 October 2024 at Rs.41,070/- is totally arbitrary.

Firstly, the exercise is undertaken without issuance of any show cause

notice to Respondent No.2. He was granted revised pay fixation of

Rs.74,310/- w.e.f. 1 April 2018 vide order dated 20 September 2021 (As

observed above, he got one step higher pay on account of his tribal

posting at Ghatghar Hydro Power Station, otherwise his normal basic

pay as on 1 April 2018 was fixed at Rs.72,875/-). This benefit of fixation

at Rs.72,875/- is arbitrarily withdrawn by order dated 24 October 2024

without offering any opportunity of hearing to Respondent No.2. It

appears that before passing order dated 24 October 2024, the Petitioners

had committed one more illegal act in unilaterally reducing the pay of

Respondent No.2 vide order dated 17 August 2022 on a temporary basis

at Rs.37,360/- without giving any intimation to him. However, since the

said pay fixation was temporary and pay fixation done vide order dated

24 October 2024 is the final fixation, I would concentrate upon fixation

done vide order dated 24 October 2024. However even before issuance of

order dated 24 October 2024, no show cause notice was issued to

Respondent No. 2.

32)Apart from gross arbitrariness in passing order dated 24 October

2024 without grant of hearing to Respondent No.2, the fixation done

therein is also arbitrary. The pay of Respondent No.2 is sought to be

fixed at Rs.41,070/- w.e.f. 1 April 2018 vide order dated 24 October 2024.

Page No. 18 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

the relevant entry in the said order fixing basic pay of Rs.41,070/- is as

under:

क

र्मचाऱ्याचे

न

ाव

, एसएपी,

भनिनिक्र

. व

प

दनाम

श्री राजेश एकनाथएडके

तंत्रज्ञ् ३

(

राज्यस्तरीय

), ०२७६३१६८/१२४७१

अ

.

क्र

.

सैन्यदलातील

अंतिम वेतन

प्रमा

णपत्रानुसार

नुसार मूळ वेतनव

निशिचत के लेल्या

वेतनाचा तपशील

वेत

ननिश्चिती

करणेत आलेली

दिनांक व

वेत

नश्रेणी

वेत

ननिश्चिती

के लेले मूळवेतन

वैयक्तिक वेतन

देयय

(

स्तंभ क्र

.०५=०२-

०४)

शेरा

१ २ ३ ४ ५ ६

४

महानिर्मिती कं पनी

वेतननिश्चिती प्रशा

.

परिपत्रक कर

.४४९

दि.०५.१०.२०१९

नुसारनवीन

वेतननिश्चिती लागू

त्याच प्रमाणे सैन्य

दलातील वेतनअंवेप्र

नुसार वेतनसामावून

घेऊनसदर

वेतनामध्ये तंत्रज्ञ् ३

पदासमिळणाऱ्या

दोनवेतनवाढीसह

मार्च२०१७ ची एक

वेतनवाढ समाविष्ट

करूननवीनवेतन

श्रेणीमध्ये एकस्तर

वेतननिश्चिती करून

वेतननिश्चिती के ले

असे

०१ एप्रिल

२०१८

तंत्रज्ञ

3

(२९०३५-

७१०-३२५८५-

९५५-४२१३५-

१०६०-

७२८७५)

तंत्रज्ञ

2

(२९९३५-

९५५-३४७१०-

१०६०-

४५३१०-

११६०-

८२४३०)

४१०७०/- -

सैन्यदलातील वेतन

३७३६०

+९५५+९५५=३९

२७०/-

तंत्रज्ञ २ या पदाच्या

वेतनश्रेणीत

४१०७० इतके

वेतननिश्चित

(२९

कनुसार

)

पुढील वेतननिश्चिती

(

३२ ख प्रमाणे

)

दि.०५.१२.२०१८

रोजी

33)It thus appears that the Petitioners took into consideration the

last pay drawn by Respondent No.2 in Military Service of Rs.37,360/- and

have added two increments of Rs.955/- each for arriving at the figure of

Rs.39,270/-. However, the basic pay is fixed at Rs.41,070/-. (this was

apparently done by considering the ‘one step higher benefit’ due to

posting in tribal area).

Page No. 19 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

34)Thus, what appears to have been done in the present case is that

the Respondent No. 2 is denied the benefit of corresponding fitment in

the new pay structure as per the Administrative Circular dated 5 October

2019. What Petitioners have done is to restrict the benefit of pay

protection only till introduction of new pay structure w.e.f. 1 April 2018.

They believe that the pay protection benefit granted to Respondent No. 2

cannot form the basis for further jumping in the new pay structure.

Therefore, they have undertaken the exercise of once again taking into

consideration his military pay while making fixation as per

Administrative Circular dated 5 October 2019. Thus, the fixation based

on military pay is done twice viz. at the time of initial appointment and

again while refixing the pay in new pay structure. Can this be done is an

issue.

35)This action on the part of the Petitioners appears to be clearly

baseless and arbitrary. As on 1 April 2018, there is no occasion for the

Petitioners to take into consideration last pay drawn by Respondent No.2

in Military Service. By that date, Respondent No.2 had already put in

more than one and half years of service with the Petitioners. His pay

fixation was already done and he was drawing basic pay of Rs.28,240/-.

Therefore, his fixation ought to have been done corresponding to the

basic pay of Rs.28,240/-. As observed above, Respondent No.2 cannot be

married to the last pay drawn in the Military Service forever. Once his

fixation is done in the Petitioners’ establishment, that fixation would

form the basis for grant of all subsequent benefits. Petitioners’ action of

restricting the benefit of pay protection only till a stage where

Respondent No.2 crosses the last military pay by not extending him the

benefit of new pay structure introduced vide Administrative Circular

Page No. 20 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

dated 5 October 2019 is clearly illegal. It is the policy decision taken by

the Petitioners to revise the pay scale of all their employees and benefit

of that policy decision cannot be denied to Respondent No.2.

36) The pay drawn by the ex-serviceman has relevance only once

while his reemployment. It cannot be taken into consideration again and

again while extending the benefits admissible to the employees of the

organization where the ex-serviceman is reemployed. Once the pay is

fixed by granting the pay protection in the reemployed establishment,

the further journey of the ex-serviceman must happen based on pay so

fixed. The new organization cannot grant the benefit of pay protection

for some time and when the employee becomes due for drawal of benefit

of new pay structure after couple of years, his last military pay is once

again considered for comparing his position in the new pay scale. This is

exactly what is done by the Petitioners. His military pay is considered

twice for fixing his pay as on 25 November 2016 (date of initial

appointment) and 1 April 2018 (after he put in 1 ½ years of service). The

military pay drawn by him is of no relevance as on 1 April 2018, when the

Respondent No. 2 had already become the employee of Petitioners.

37)One must also take into consideration the fact that benefit of pay

protection is extended to Ex-serviceman by taking into consideration

contribution made by them towards the Nation as well as considering the

experience earned by them in the Military. Under Regulation 28(b)(ii),

the benefit of pay protection is available only to such Ex-servicemen,

who are discharged from Military Service after completion of full tenure.

Thus, one must complete the full tenure of Military Service to get the

benefit of pay protection. The pay of ex-servicemen is protected to

Page No. 21 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

ensure they do not suffer a drastic financial drop when transitioning

from the Armed Forces to civilian jobs. The policy acknowledges their

years of dedicated service, preventing them from being penalized

financially for starting at the bottom of civilian pay.

38)The Petitioners have appreciated the above position and had

extended higher basic pay of Rs. 28,240/- to Respondent No.2 from the

date of initial appointment though his civilian counterpart would have

received basic pay only of Rs. 11,275/-. Petitioners did not stop at

offering the last-stage basic pay in the scale, but since that stage still fell

short of his military pay of Rs. 37,360, additional personal pay of Rs.

9,060/- was extended to Respondent No.2. This benefit of higher pay is

extended to Respondent No.2 by acknowledging the experience earned

by him in 20 years of Armed Forces Service in addition to the

contribution made by him to the Nation. It cannot be that this

recognition would operate only for a period of one and half years and

would vanish the moment new pay structure is introduced w.e.f. 1 April

2018.

39)Mr. Pakale has strenuously relied on letter of Respondent No.2

dated 1 January 2025 in support of his contention that he had given up

the demand for basic pay of Rs.72,875/- and submitted a compromise

proposal. I have gone through the letter dated 1 January 2025. The

background in which said letter was submitted must be appreciated. By 1

January 2025, Respondent No.2 had suffered repeated arbitrary actions

of the Petitioners in refixing his pay and ordering recoveries. With a view

to avoid any litigation and mental agony, he suggested that if his basic

pay cannot be fixed at Rs.72,875/- the same be fixed at least at the stage

Page No. 22 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

of Rs.50,615/-. However, this demand of Respondent No.2 was rejected by

the Petitioners, who made him to litigate on the issue of pay fixation.

When this Court is satisfied about right of Respondent No.2 for fixation

of basic pay of Rs. 72,875/- w.e.f. 1 April 2018, there is no question of

defeating the said right merely on account of submission of letter dated

1 January 2025. It is another matter that by subsequent correspondence,

Respondent No.2 withdrew the offer made vide letter dated 1 January

2025 when he was made to litigate.

40)Mr. Pakale has raised an objection that the Respondent No. 2 did

not challenge order dated 24 October 2024 and decision of the HPC.

Though prayers made in the Complaint did not specifically refer to order

dated 24 October 2024, there is ample reference to the same in the body

of the Complaint. Even otherwise, there is specific prayer for fixation of

pay as per the Administrative Circular dated 5 October 2019 and for

refund of the recovered amounts. Order dated 24 October 2024 had the

effect of withdrawal of pay fixed in accordance with the Administrative

Circular dated 5 October 2019 and also directing recovery. Therefore, it

cannot be contended that there was no challenge to the fixation made

vide order dated 24 October 2024. So far as the minutes of the

Committee are concerned, the same cannot be treated a ‘decision’ by any

stretch of imagination. In any case, the minutes were not

contemporaneously communicated to Respondent No.2. Therefore, non-

challenge to the minutes of the Committee is not fatal.

41)Conspectus of the above discussion is that the Industrial Court has

correctly set aside order dated 24 October 2024 and has rightly directed

re-fixation of Respondent No. 2 as per Annexure-III, Sr. No.45 of

Page No. 23 of 24

7 July 2026

Megha 17_wp_7248_2026_fc.odt

Administrative Circular No. 449 dated 5 October 2019. No infirmity can

be traced in the order of the Industrial Court, which appears to my mind

to be unexceptionable.

42) Writ Petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed with

no order as to costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Page No. 24 of 24

7 July 2026