Their offending occurred over a period of about 10 years while Maharaj was working for the North Shore City Council.
The duo formed an agreement to invoice the council for road and berm maintenance work, however the work was never completed.
They used 151 invoices in their scheme, with Din submitting the invoices under the name of S Din Family Trust.
Din appealed against all his convictions on the basis that errors by his lawyer during the trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Maharaj appealed against six of his convictions on the grounds that errors by his lawyer and the trial judge resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
He also argued his sentence was manifestly high as a result of the starting point being too high.
Justices Rhys Harrison, Patricia Courtney and Denis Clifford allowed Din's appeal against 11 of his 18 convictions and said because he had almost served his home detention sentence, they would not order a retrial.
But they dismissed his appeal against the remaining convictions, which related to money he received from the council.
The justices said because Din was advised by his lawyer not to give evidence during the trial and his lawyer erred in the type of defence available to him, Din was deprived of a fair trial.
They dismissed Maharaj's appeal against his convictions and sentence.
In regards to Maharaj, the justices said the sentencing judge's starting point was accurate considering his sustained effort to defraud his employer.
They dismissed his arguments relating to his convictions as having no substance.
