Bombay High Court Recalls Earlier Judgment After Finding Double Pay Revision For Former Soldier, Restores Maharashtra Power Company’s Pay Fixation Without Ordering Any Recovery
Bombay High Court Allows Mahagenco Review Over Ex Serviceman’s Duplicate Seventh Pay Commission Benefits, Cuts Basic Pay From ₹72,875 To ₹41,070 But Bars Retrospective Recovery
Facts
Rajesh Eknath Edake, a former Army serviceman, joined Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. (MAHAGENCO/MSPGCL) as Technician-III on 25 November 2016. After receiving Seventh Pay Commission revision in military service, his last military pay was protected at about ₹37,300 upon re-employment. A company circular dated 5 October 2019 introduced revised pay scales retrospectively from 1 April 2018. The Industrial Court, Pune, by order dated 24 December 2025, set aside the employer’s October 2024 fixation of ₹41,070 and directed fixation at ₹72,875. The High Court dismissed the employer’s writ petition on 7 July 2026. The employer sought review, relying on additional pay-revision records to show a duplicate benefit.
Issues
Whether newly produced records and an overlooked double fixation of pay justified review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; whether pay protection following military service could be followed by a second equivalent pay revision in MAHAGENCO; and whether the employer could recover earlier excess payments after correcting its employee’s pay.
Petitioner’s Arguments
MAHAGENCO argued that the employee obtained the Seventh Pay Commission benefit in the Army and again received its economic equivalent when the company merged 125% dearness allowance into basic pay under the 2019 circular. Five historical governmental and institutional records, allegedly traced despite due diligence, established the link between the revisions. Treating the post-revision protected military salary as the base for another revision created an unjustified increase to ₹72,875 for a Technician-III, with significant financial and parity implications. It sought review and restoration of its fixation order of 24 October 2024.
Respondent’s Arguments
Edake maintained that review was an impermissible appeal in disguise and that the employer was attempting to reopen findings already adjudicated. The company’s periodic wage revision was not shown to be identical to Seventh Pay Commission implementation; a union demand concerning merger of 125% dearness allowance proved no binding link. No circular or board resolution specifically excluded re-employed ex-servicemen from the 2019 revision. He invoked decisions protecting the last pay and allowances earned in military service and opposed reliance on documents always accessible to the employer.
Analysis of the Law
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC confines review to discovery of important evidence unavailable despite diligence, a self-evident error, or sufficient reason. Review cannot ordinarily correct an allegedly wrong decision through rehearing. Nevertheless, material capable of changing the decision and a decisive overlooked fact may warrant intervention. The Court distinguished pay protection on re-employment from two successive applications of substantially equivalent pay-revision formulae. Its conclusion was specific to the employee joining between the Army’s 1 January 2016 revision and MAHAGENCO’s revision effective 1 April 2018, rather than a general prohibition on ex-servicemen obtaining wage increases.
Precedent Analysis
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, (2024) 2 SCC 362, supplied the strict rule that review is not a disguised appeal and that an error apparent must not require prolonged reasoning. Neethu B. alias Neethu Baby Mathew v. Rajesh Kumar, (2025) 10 SCC 436, explained the threefold test for newly discovered evidence: materiality, previous lack of knowledge and due diligence. Rajender Singh v. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, (2005) 13 SCC 289, was relied on for correcting errors to avert injustice. Mukund K. Pai v. Punjab National Bank and Major Kurian Thomas v. Bank of Maharashtra were cited by the employee on protection of ex-servicemen’s last-drawn pay.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Sandeep V. Marne found that the earlier judgment had overlooked the decisive effect of double application of pay revision: military basic pay of ₹11,440 as at December 2015 was raised to about ₹37,300 under the Seventh Pay Commission and protected on re-employment, after which the employee claimed a further company revision to ₹72,875. Additional documents showed the company’s adoption of 125% DA merger, plus a 32.5% increase, from April 2018. Though the documents had been in the employer’s custody and should have been produced earlier, their significance would have changed the earlier result. The Court considered the error sufficiently patent to recall its order, and held ₹41,070 to be the correct fixation; it nevertheless rejected recovery as harsh in the circumstances.
Conclusion
The review petition succeeded in part. The High Court recalled its judgment of 7 July 2026, set aside the Industrial Court’s order of 24 December 2025, and restored MAHAGENCO’s revised pay-fixation order dated 24 October 2024, fixing the employee’s pay at ₹41,070 with effect from 1 April 2018 instead of ₹72,875. Crucially, the employer was prohibited from recovering excess wages already paid. Writ Petition No. 7248 of 2026 was allowed to that extent; no costs were ordered. The decision illustrates exceptional review to rectify a pivotal factual oversight, while protecting an employee from retrospective recovery.
Case: Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Rajesh Eknath Edake
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Case Number: Review Petition No. 127 of 2026 in Writ Petition No. 7248 of 2026; 2026:BHC-AS:45355
Judge: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Date: 5 November 2026 (reserved 29 October 2026)
Result: Review partly allowed; earlier High Court and Industrial Court orders set aside; ₹41,070 fixation upheld; no wage recovery.
