JUDGMENT : M.S. Jawalkar, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard finally at the request and by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners are employees of Zilla Parishad and they all have retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th June in different years. By way of Pursis, it is informed that the petitioner No.4 is expired during the pendency of the petition and therefore, permission is granted to amend the petition suitably by bringing his legal heirs on record. 3. As per Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 (for short ‘Rules of 2009’), annual increment is due and payable on a uniform date i.e. 1st July of every year. Rule 10 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, reads as under: “There will be a uniform date of annual increment, viz. 1st July of every year. Employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on the 1st day of July will be eligible to be granted the increment. The first increment after fixation of pay on the 1st day of January 2006 in the revised pay structure will be granted on the 1st day of July 2006. Accordingly, all Government servants who earned their last increment between the 2nd day of January 2005 and the 1st day of January 2006 would get their next increment on the 1st day of July 2006. Provided that, in the case of Government servants whose date of increment falls on the 1st day of January 2006, the increment will be drawn in the pre-revised scale and pay fixed in accordance with these rules after including this increment. The next increment in the revised pay structure in such cases will be drawn on the 1st day of July, 2006…………….. 4. The petitioners despite rendering one full year of service were not granted annual increment only because they had retired on 30th June of respective years. It is submitted that the petitioners were receiving annual increment regularly when they were in service, except the last annual increment which fell due on 1st July, as they retired on 30th June of respective years. 5. By this petition, the petitioners are claiming annual increment for having completed one year of service and for the revision of their pay, pension and consequential benefits accordingly. 6. 5. By this petition, the petitioners are claiming annual increment for having completed one year of service and for the revision of their pay, pension and consequential benefits accordingly. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that payment of increment on 1st July is a statutory formality but the entitlement and eligibility, therefor, is completion of one year of service i.e. 365 days of service, prior to that date. The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981, came to be amended from time to time and vide the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, the Recommendation of 6th Pay Commission came to be accepted and made applicable to the State Government employees. As per Rule 10 of the Rules of 2009, the annual increment is due and payable on 1st July of every year. The said Rule 10 of the Rules of 2009 is by and large similar to Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. 7. In view of both these Rules, the annual increment will be due and payable to an employee on 1st July of every year for having completed one year of service. The petitioners stood retired on 30th June in different years, but, they have completed their one year service on the day of their retirement. But only because they were not in service on 1st July, they are declined benefits of the said annual increment. Consequently, their pay, pension and other retiral benefits are fixed on a disadvantages position. 8. Shri A.R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.15732/2017 in case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and others, decided on 15.09.2017 in support of his contention that the petitioners are entitled for increment and accordingly, pay revision and other benefits. It is informed that the said order of the Madras High Court was challenged by the Union of India before the Apex Court. However, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the Review Application filed by the Union of India also came to be dismissed. 9. Shri B.N. Jaipurkar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5, conceded that the Madras High Court is in support of the petitioners. However, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the Review Application filed by the Union of India also came to be dismissed. 9. Shri B.N. Jaipurkar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5, conceded that the Madras High Court is in support of the petitioners. However, in view of Rule 10 they are not entitled as they are not in service on 1st July of respective years. 10. We have heard both the parties at length. Rival contentions now falls for our determination. 11. The case of the petitioners is that all the petitioners are retired/superannuated employees of the Zilla Parishad-respondent No.4 and were holding different posts, but, they all retired on 30th June in different years. Each of the petitioners have one thing in common i.e. they all retired on 30th June, but, in different years. They are beneficiaries of 6th Pay Commission Recommendations made applicable vide Rule 10 of the Rules of 2009. They were denied annual increment which was due and payable, though they have completed one full year of service but have retired on 30th June. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in similar set of facts relying on the judgment reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 6525, State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department and Others Vs. M. Balasubramaniam held in P. Ayyamperumal (supra) that when the date of increment of a Government Servant falls due on the day following superannuation on completion of one full year of service, the said service may be considered for benefit of notional increment, purely for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. In the present matter, the petitioners have completed one full year service on 30th June of their respective years of retirement, but, the increment fell due on 1st July, the date of which they were not in service. Thus, what is important in the present matter, the petitioners have completed one full year service on 30th June of the respective years of retirement, however they were denied the benefit of the increment that fell due on 1st July, just because on the date of the increment falling due they were not in service. Thus, what is important in the present matter, the petitioners have completed one full year service on 30th June of the respective years of retirement, however they were denied the benefit of the increment that fell due on 1st July, just because on the date of the increment falling due they were not in service. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, which was confirmed by the Apex Court, the petitioners were treated as having completed one full year service, though the date of their increment fell on the next day of their retirement. Though as per Rule 10 the increment falls due on 1st July but entitlement & eligibility therefore, is a completion of one year of service prior to that date. Thus, increment is drawn on 1st July of every year which causes increase in the payment and Grade pay last drawn as on 30th June. A salary increment or salary raise, typically represents a portion of what an employee earns in a year. Thus, all the petitioners though fulfill that criteria of entitlement their service up to 30th June ought to be considered for grant of benefit of notional increment if they are eligible otherwise. 12. The writ petition is allowed in terms of Prayer Clause (A). The respondent No. 4 - Zilla Parishad shall take all necessary steps for granting notional annual increment to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The petitioners would be entitled for all consequential benefits accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.