Kavindra Nath Rai vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 8183 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6092 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Kavindra Nath Rai
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidhya Shanker Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018. Annual increment for the year 2017-18 fell due on 01.07.2018 and the same was not sanctioned to the petitioner on the ground that he was not in service on that day. In an earlier Writ Petition No.18044 of 2019 filed by the petitioner before this Court a direction was issued to consider petitioner's claim. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ballia has rejected petitioner's claim vide order impugned dated 15.01.2021 on the ground that the increment fell due on 01.07.2018 by when the petitioner ceased to be in employment.

The controversy raised in the present petition has been adjudicated by this Court in Writ Petition No.13299 of 2020, decided on 29.06.2021. Paragraph nos.20 to 25 of the judgment are relevant and thus reproduced hereinafter:-

"20. Payment of salary and increment to a central government servant is regulated by the provisions of F.R., CSR and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Pay defined in F.R. 9(21) means the amount drawn monthly by a central government servant and includes the increment. A plain composite reading of applicable provisions leaves no ambiguity that annual increment is given to a government servant to enable him to discharge duties of the post and that pay and allowances are also attached to the post. Article 43 of the CSR defines progressive appointment to mean an appointment wherein the pay is progressive, subject to good behaviour of an officer. It connotes that pay rises, by periodical increments from a minimum to a maximum. The increment in case of progressive appointment is specified in Article 151 of the CSR to mean that increment accrues from the date following that on which it is earned. The scheme, taken cumulatively, clearly suggests that appointment of a central government servant is a progressive appointment and periodical increment in pay from a minimum to maximum is part of the pay structure. Article 151 of CSR contemplates that increment accrues from the day following which it is earned. This increment is not a matter of course but is dependent upon good conduct of the central government servant. It is, therefore, apparent that central government employee earns increment on the basis of his good conduct for specified period i.e. a year in case of annual increment. Increment in pay is thus an integral part of progressive appointment and accrues from the day following which it is earned.

21. There is a purpose for providing that increment earned accrues from the day following which it is earned. The grant of increment is not a matter of course and is dependent upon good conduct of the government servant for the entire year. It is, therefore but natural that good conduct must be observed for the entire year before the increment accrues. This is logical and in normal circumstances creates no difficulty for a central government servant.

22. Difficulty arises only when the central government servant also retires on the last day when he completes his yearly service required for grant of increment. Article 151 to 153 of the CSR explicitly provides that increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned. Going by the plain reading of the applicable provisions the benefit of annual increment would not be available to a government servant if he superannuates on 30th June since the increment became payable only on the 1st of July. It is on the basis of above reasoning that full bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court & Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected the claim for payment of increment to the government servant who retires on 30th of June. With utmost respects to the views expressed by the two Court's, I find myself unable to subscribe to it, for the reasons enumerated hereinafter.

23. Annual increment though is attached to the post & becomes payable on a day following which it is earned but the day on which increment accrues or becomes payable is not conclusive or determinative. In the statutory scheme governing progressive appointment increment becomes due for the services rendered over a year by the government servant subject to his good behaviour. The pay of a central government servant rises, by periodical increments, from a minimum to the maximum in the prescribed scale. The entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day.

24. Law is settled that where entitlement to receive a benefit crystallises in law its denial would be arbitrary unless it is for a valid reason. The only reason for denying benefit of increment, culled out from the scheme is that the central government servant is not holding the post on the day when the increment becomes payable. This cannot be a valid ground for denying increment since the day following the date on which increment is earned only serves the purpose of ensuring completion of a year's service with good conduct and no other purpose can be culled out for it. The concept of day following which the increment is earned has otherwise no purpose to achieve. In isolation of the purpose it serves the fixation of day succeeding the date of entitlement has no intelligible differentia nor any object is to be achieved by it. The central government servant retiring on 30th June has already completed a year of service and the increment has been earned provided his conduct was good. It would thus be wholly arbitrary if the increment earned by the central government employee on the basis of his good conduct for a year is denied only on the ground that he was not in employment on the succeeding day when increment became payable. In the case of a government servant retiring on 30th of June the next day on which increment falls due/becomes payable looses significance and must give way to the right of the government servant to receive increment due to satisfactory services of a year so that the scheme is not construed in a manner that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The scheme for payment of increment would have to be read as whole and one part of Article 151 of CSR cannot be read in isolation so as to frustrate the other part particularly when the other part creates right in the central government servant to receive increment. This would ensure that scheme of progressive appointment remains intact and the rights earned by a government servant remains protected and are not denied due to a fortuitous circumstance.

25. In view of the above deliberations and discussions, I find myself in absolute agreement with the view expressed on the issue by Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal (supra) as also the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra) and this Court in the case of P.P. Pandey (supra). The statutory rules cannot be read in a manner such that substantive rights earned by a central government employee under the Rules is denied to him. I, therefore, hold that a government servant retiring on 30th June would be entitled to benefit of increment falling due on 1st July on account of his good conduct for the requisite length of time i.e. one year, in a regime of progressive appointment. The petitioners', therefore, would be entitled to the grant of increment payable on 1st July 2019, notwithstanding their superannuation on 30th June, 2019. Orders impugned in this petition are consequently quashed. The respondents are directed to consider petitioners' case afresh in light of the above observations and directions within a period of two months from the date of services of the order. Writ petition, consequently succeeds and is allowed. Costs, however, are made easy."

Learned Standing Counsel states that instead of keeping the matter pending the competent authority be permitted to revisit the issue in light of the above observations.

For the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment the order impugned dated 15.01.2021, passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ballia cannot be sustained and is quashed. The authority concerned shall revisit the issue in light of the above observations and pass a fresh order in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. All consequential benefits found due would be extended in terms of the aforesaid direction within a further period of six weeks, thereafter.

Writ petition stands allowed.

Order Date :- 19.7.2021

Ashok Kr.