Bombay High Court
Ramtirth Motiramji Bharne And ... vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary, ... on 11 September, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, Urmila Sachin Phalke
2023:BHC-NAG:13476-DB
931.wp.4515.2022.judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4515 OF 2022
1. Ramtirth Motiramji Bharne,
Aged about 69 Years,
Occ: Retired Headmaster,
R/o Suresh Nagar, Dhamangaon Road,
Yavatmal, Taluka and District :
Yavatmal - 445001.
2. Chandrakant Bhauraoji Talmale,
Aged about 62 Years,
Occ: Retired (Teacher), R/o. Ujwal
Nagar, Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal,
Taluka and District : Yavatmal - 445001.
3. Babarao Ramkrushna Didpaye,
Aged about 65 Years,
Occ: Retired (Teacher), R/o Veni Kotha,
Taluka Kalamb, District : Yavatmal.
4. Smt. Uma Keshavrao Kadu,
Aged about 69 Years,
Occ: Retired (Teacher)
R/o Pushpakunj Society,
Arni Road, Yavatmal,
Taluka and District : Yavatmal.
5. Kisan Malhari Panpatte,
Aged about 70 Years,
Occ: Retired (Teacher),
R/o Papinwar Layout,
Pusad, Taluka Pusad,
District : Yavatmal. ..... PETITIONERS
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development, Bandhkam
Bhawan, 25, Marzban Road,
Fort Mumbai - 400001.
931.wp.4515.2022.judgment.odt
(2)
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
School Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 440 032.
3. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati,
Taluka and District : Amravati.
4. Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal through
its Chief Executive Officer, Yavatmal,
Taluka and District : Yavatmal.
5. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal,
Taluka and District : Yavatmal. .... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri J. S. Wankhade, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mrs. Kalyani Deshpande, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.
Ms. Sweta Bhaisare, Advocate h/f Shri B. N. Jaipurkar, Advocate
for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 05.09.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 11.09.2023
JUDGMENT : [ PER: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The matter is finally heard at the request and by the consent
of the parties.
931.wp.4515.2022.judgment.odt
3. All the petitioners are the retired employees of the Zilla
Parishad, Yavatmal and were serving on different posts. The petitioner
No.5 Kisan Malhari Panpatte was working with the Secondary School
namely, Koshatwar Daulatkhan Secondary School, Pusad, District
Yavatmal. All the petitioners are retired on 30 th June in different years.
The following chart shows the date of retirement and their respective
posts.
v-Øz- ukao lsokfuo`Rr lsokfuo`Rr osGh
fnukad in
1- jkefrFkZ eksrhjketh Hkj.ks 30@06@2011 eq[;k/;kid
2- Ckkckjko jked`".k fnMik;s 30@06@2015 eq[;k/;kid
3- panzdkar HkkÅjkoth ryeys 30@06@2018 l-f'k{kd
4- Jherh mek ds'kojko dMw 30@06@2011 eq[;k/;kihdk
5- fdlu eYgkjh ikuiV~Vs 30@06@2010 l-f'k{kd
4. As per the contention of the petitioners, they all retired on
30th June and therefore, the annual increment which is given on 1 st July
of every year has been denied to them. They further contended that as
they have rendered the services for entire year, therefore, they are
entitled for the annual increment which is due on 1 st July, though they
retired on 30th June. They have made representations and requested to
grant benefit, however, their representations are not considered, and
therefore, they approached to this Court.
931.wp.4515.2022.judgment.odt
5. The respondents denied the contentions of the petitioners
on the ground that as they are already retired from the service on 30th
June, and therefore, they are not entitled for any increment.
6. Heard learned Counsel Shri Wankhede for the petitioners.
He submitted that, this Court in various judgments have already taken
the view that Zilla Parishad or any other department are liable to pay
annual increment as the employees had completed work of 365 days. In
view of the said judgments, present petitioners are also entitled for the
said increment. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the
decision of this Court, in Writ petition No.3028 of 2021 Kailash
Gulabchand Sahuji and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
decided on 02.05.2022 (Aurangabad Bench), wherein this Court has
interpreted Rule 10 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
2009 and held that the petitioners are entitled for the annual increment
which is due on 1st July. It is held that considering the dates of
superannuation of these petitioners as being 30 th June of the respective
years, the increment payable to them on 1 st July of the concerned year,
would be reckoned with for notionally calculating the pensionary
benefits, which would have been payable to them from 1 st July, for their
superannuation on 30th June. This notional inclusion of the annual
931.wp.4515.2022.judgment.odt
increment would be considered for calculating their pension, gratuity,
earned leave, commutation benefits etc.
7. Learned AGP reiterated the contentions and submitted that
petitioners are not entitled for any annual increment. Learned Counsel
for respondent Nos.4 and 5 endorsed the same contention.
8. As per Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised
Pay) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred as "Rules of 2009"), annual
increment is due and payable of a uniform date i.e. 1 st July of every year.
Rule 10 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 reads as
under:
Rule 10.- Date of next increment in the revised Pay Structure.
This rule prescribes the manner in which the next
increment in the new Pay Structure should be regulated.
The provisos to this rule are intended to eliminate the
anomalies of junior Government servants drawing more
pay than their senior by the operation of substantive part
of this rule and also taking care of the Government
servants who have been drawing pay at the maximum of
the existing scale for more than one year as on 1.1.2006
and also those Government servant who have been
stagnating at the maximum of the scale.
The increment as on 1.7.2006 under this rule as well
as subsequent annual increments thereafter are admissible
subject to the provisions contained in the rule 36 and 39 of
the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981."
931.wp.4515.2022.judgment.odt
9. The petitioners despite rendering one full year of service
were not granted annual increment only because they had retired on 30 th
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 1 st July, as they retired on
30th June of respective years.
10. It is material to note that payment of increment on 1 th July
is a statutory formality but the entitlement and eligibility, therefore, 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 in view of Maharashtra Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, the recommendation of 6 th Pay Commission
came to be accepted and made applicable to the State Government
Employees. In view of 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.
11. In view of both these rules, being pari materia what has
been held in Kailash Gulabchand Sahuji and others (supra) would apply
with full vigour to the present matter, and the annual increment will be
931.wp.4515.2022.judgment.odt
due and payable to an employee on 1 st July of every year for having
completed one year of service. The petitioners who retired on 30 th June
in different years, but they have completed their one year service on the
date of their retirement, but only because they were not in service on 1 st
July, they are declined the benefits of the said annual increment.
Consequently, their pay, pension and other retiral benefits are placed in
disadvantages position.
12. In Writ Petition No.3028 of 2021 Kailash Gulabchand Sahuji
and others along with the connected petitions (supra), which considered
the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 15.09.2017 in Writ
Petition No.15732/2017 in P. Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar, Central
Administrative Tribunal and others in Paragraph Nos.5, 6 and 7 it has
been held as under:-
"5. The petitioner retired as Additional Director
General, Chennai, on 30.06.2013 on attaining the age
of superannuation. After the Sixth Pay Commission, the
Central Government fixed 1st July as the date of
increment for all employees by amending Rule 10 of the
Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. In
view of the said amendment, the petitioner was denied
the last increment, though he completed a full one year
in service, i.e. from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013. Hence,
the petitioners filed the original application in OA
No.310/00917/2015 before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Madras Bench, and the same was rejected on
the ground that an incumbent is only entitled to
931.wp.4515.2022.judgment.odt
increment on 1st July if he continued in service on that
day.
6. In the case on hand, the petitioner got retired on
30.06.2013. As per the Central Civil Services (Revised
Pay) Rules, 2008, the increment has to be given only on
01.07.2013, but he had been superannuated on
30.06.2013 itself. The judgment referred to by the
petitioner in State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to
Government, Finance Department and others Vs. M.
Balasubramaniam, reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 6525,
was passed under similar circumstances on 20.09.2012,
wherein this Court confirmed the order passed in W.P.
No.8440 of 2011 allowing the writ petition filed by the
employee, by observing that the employee had
completed, one full year of service from 01.04.2002 to
31.03.2003, which entitled him to the benefit of
increment which accrued to him during that period.
7 The petitioner herein had completed one full year
service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on
01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In
view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he
has to be treated as having completed one full year of
service, though the date of increment falls on the next
date of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to
the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal
dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be
given one notional increment for the period from
01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full
year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013,
for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any
other purpose. No costs."
13. There is no dispute that Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 is identical, to the amended Rule 10
931.wp.4515.2022.judgment.odt
of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 in relations to the
uniformity in annual increment, and therefore, what has been held in
Kailash Gulabchand Sahuji and others (supra) would apply with full
vigour to the present matter.
14. In the present petition, all these petitioners have
superannuated on 30th day of June of the particular years as they were
due for superannuation shown in the chart. It is undisputed that the
recommendations under the 6th Pay Commission altered the date on
which the annual increment would have become payable, which was
normally payable after putting in 12 months in continuous service
preceding the date of reference and fixed the date as 1 st day of July of
each year. That prior thereto, the employees used to earn their annual
increment by calculating 12 calendar months from the dates of their
appointment for each succeeding year. Thus, the reference of period of
12 months for calculating the annual increment, was a period of 12
calendar months in each succeeding academic year from the date of
appointment. By the recommendations of the 6 th pay Commission
uniformity was decided to be introduced and 1 st of July of each year was
considered to the date on which the annual increment for completing
the 12 calendar months preceding 1 st July, would be payable. Thus, for
the work performed in 12 calendar months till 30 th June, the said
931.wp.4515.2022.judgment.odt
employee would earn the annual increment on 1 st July of the said year.
It is in this peculiar circumstances that, these petitioners after having
superannuated on 30th June of the respective years, would have earned
the annual increment which became payable to them on 1 st of July. They
were not granted the notional benefit of the increment which would
have been payable on 1st July for the work performed for the earlier year.
15. It is in these circumstances, we find that the present
petitioners who are superannuated on 30 th June of the respective years
are also entitled to receive the increment which was due on 1 st July of
the concerned year, after 2006, and it would be reckoned for calculating
the pensionary benefits, which would have been payable to them from
1st July, but for their superannuation on 30th June. This notional
inclusion of the annual increment would be considered for calculating
their pension, gratuity, earned leave, commutation benefits etc.
16. Considering these aspects, we are of the view that the
arrears of such benefits as granted by us could be restricted for a
reasonable period. These petitioners would be entitled for the arrears of
such benefits for a period of three years preceding the dates of their
superannuation or as per actuals, which ever is less. We direct the
931.wp.4515.2022.judgment.odt
payment of such arrears accordingly, and such payment to be made to
these petitioners on or before 30.09.2023.
17. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Rule
accordingly. No order as to costs.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/09/2023 18:30:37
