The Bombay High Court has recalled its earlier decision upholding an ex-serviceman’s higher pay fixation after finding that he received the benefit of pay revision twice. While restoring the employer’s lower fixation, the Court prohibited recovery of excess wages, citing the complexity of the issue and the employer’s own delay in detecting the error.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has partly allowed Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited’s review petition in a pay-fixation dispute with employee Rajesh Eknath Edake, reversing its earlier ruling but protecting him against recovery of excess payments.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne delivered the judgment on November 5, 2026 in the company’s review petition arising from Writ Petition No. 7248 of 2026.
The Court confirmed the employer’s October 24, 2024 order fixing Edake’s basic pay at ₹41,070 with effect from April 1, 2018. It set aside the Industrial Court’s direction to fix his pay at ₹72,875 from that date and recalled the High Court’s July 7, 2026 judgment that had upheld the employee’s claim.
Military pay protection followed by another revision
Edake joined the company as Technician-III on November 25, 2016. He received protection of his last-drawn military pay after it had been revised under the Seventh Pay Commission framework.
The company subsequently introduced a revised pay structure through Administrative Circular No. 449 dated October 5, 2019, effective from April 1, 2018. The dispute arose over applying that structure to the pay already protected on his re-employment.
The employer argued that the employee had benefited twice from the merger of dearness allowance into basic pay—first in military service and then through the company’s revision. It relied on government notifications, an earlier MSEB order and pay-settlement material to establish the connection between the two exercises.
The employee opposed reopening the decision
Edake argued that the review sought a rehearing of matters already decided. His counsel disputed the claimed connection between the company’s periodic pay revision and the Seventh Pay Commission, and submitted that no circular expressly excluded ex-servicemen who had already received military pay revision.
The Court first examined the limited grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It reiterated that review cannot serve as an appeal or permit a fresh hearing merely because a party considers the decision erroneous.
It also discussed the requirements for relying on newly discovered material: its capacity to change the result, lack of prior knowledge and inability to produce it despite due diligence.
Why the Court recalled its own ruling
On the facts, Justice Marne found that the employee had joined during the interval between implementation of the military pay revision and the effective date of the company’s new structure. Applying both had produced an undue double benefit.
The Court acknowledged that the documents now relied upon had been in the employer’s custody and ought to have been produced earlier. It nevertheless held that the material went to the root of the dispute and exposed an apparent error in the earlier judgment’s failure to recognise the double revision.
The judgment therefore rests on the particular pay-fixation history and the Court’s finding of an apparent error. It does not treat review as a general opportunity to improve a previously unsuccessful case by submitting documents late.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Says An Appeal Disguised As Review Should Not Be Entertained
Lower fixation restored, recovery barred
The Court held that the employer’s ₹41,070 fixation ensured that the benefit of revision was received once, while still leaving the employee with higher basic pay than a comparable civilian recruit.
However, it refused to permit recovery arising from the revised fixation. The employer itself had taken until October 2024 to identify the earlier error, and the Court considered recovery harsh given the complexities involved.
The operative order recalled the July 2026 judgment, set aside the Industrial Court’s December 24, 2025 decision in Complaint (ULP) No. 19 of 2025, confirmed the employer’s fixation and expressly barred recovery from Edake as a result of that refixation. The review and writ petition were disposed of without costs.
Case: Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Rajesh Eknath Edake
Number: Review Petition No. 127 of 2026 in Writ Petition No. 7248 of 2026
Court and Bench: Bombay High Court; Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Decision: November 5, 2026; reserved October 29, 2026
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:45355
Outcome: Review partly allowed; earlier judgment recalled; employer’s pay fixation confirmed; recovery prohibited.
