Bombay High Court
Vasant S/O Parbatji Ambone vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 5 August, 2024
Author: M.W. Chandwani
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, M.W. Chandwani
2024:BHC-NAG:8649-DB
9.wp.4102.23.jud.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.4102 of 2023
Petitioner : : Vasant s/o Parbatji Ambone,
Aged about 61 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Plot No.176/A,
Durgesh Nandini Co-operative Society,
Narsala Road, Behind Indian Gas Godown,
Nilkamal Nagar, Nagpur - 34.
- Versus -
Respondents : : 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Law & Judiciary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Ministry of Finance,
Through its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3. The Registrar General, Bombay High Court,
Mumbai.
4. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur,
"Suyog Building", Civil Lines, Nagpur
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. A.K. Neware, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.A. Thakre, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. P.S. Khubalkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATE : 5th AUGUST, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per M.W. Chandwani, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent
of the learned Counsel for the parties.
02] The grievance in this petition is the refusal of respondents to
grant the benefit of one annual increment, which fell due on 30th June to the
petitioner, who superannuated on 30th June of the relevant year.
03] The learned Counsel for the petitioner that submitted that the
issue is already covered by the several decisions of this Court. To buttress his
submission, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P.
Mundinamani and others - 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401 and the decision of this
Court in Writ Petition No.4167 of 2022 [Sudhakar Bhagwanji Bhurke and
others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others] rendered on 17/07/2023 as well
as the Government Resolution dated 28/06/2023.
04] The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the
State fairly agrees the settled position of law.
05] The issue of entitlement of annual increment of the petitioner is
squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani
(supra), wherein it has been held that a government servant is entitled to the
benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a
specific period of one year with good conduct efficiently. Merely because, the
employee has retired on the very next day, he cannot be denied the annual
increment, which he has earned and/or entitled to for rendering the service
with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding one year. On the same line,
the petitioner is also entitled for one notional annual increment.
06] Vide Government Resolution dated 28/06/2023, directions are
issued to consider the claim of such employees, who stood retired on 30 th
June and grant them one notional annual increment while calculating their
pensionary benefits. The relevant portion of the said Government Resolution
is reproduced hereunder for reference.
ßek- mPp U;k;ky;] [kaMihB vkSjaxkckn ;kauh fnysys mijksDr
vkns'k fopkjkr ?ksÅu loZ foHkkxkauk [kkyhy izdk.ks dGfo.;kr ;sr vkgs-
ts jkT; 'kkldh; deZpkjh fn- 30 twu jksth lsokfuo`Rr >kys
vkgsr o T;kauh ekxhy 12 efgU;kaph vgZrkdkjh lsok dsysyh vkgs v'kk
loZ lsokfuo`Rr deZpkÚ;kauk fn-01 tqyS jksthph dkYifud ¼Notional½
osruok< fopkjkr ?ksÅu] R;kaps lsokfuo`Rrhosru lq/kkjhr dj.;klkBh
lacf/kr dk;kZy;kdMs vtZ dj.;kckr loZ lacaf/kr lsokfu`Rrkauk vkokgu
dj.;kckcr] loZ ea=ky;hu iz'kkldh; foHkkxkauh R;kaP;k vf/kuLr
dk;kZy;krhy foHkkxizeqa[kkauk dGokos-
R;kauarj ;kizek.ks vtZ izkIr >kkY;kuarj] lacaf/kr dk;kZy;kauh oj
uewn dsysY;k ek- mPp U;k;ky;] [kaMihB vkSjaxkckn ;kaP;k mijksDr
vkns'kkr uewn dsY;kuqlkj laca/kkauk lq/kkjhr lsokfuo`Rrhfo"k;d ykHk vuqKs;
djkos- rlsp lnj ykHk lq/kkjhr dj.;kr vkY;kuarj R;kauh vtZ nk[ky
dsysY;k fnukadkP;k ekxhy 3 o"kkZaph Fkdckdh vFkok R;kapk lsokfuo`Rrhpk
fnukad ;k iSdh ts deh vlsy frrdh Fkdckdh ns.;kr ;koh- ek- mPp
U;k;ky;kus fnysY;k ekxZn'kZd rRokaph iwrZrk djhr vlysY;k dks.kR;kgh
lsokfuo`Rrkpk vtZ QsVkG.;kr ;sÅ u;s-
rlsp lacaf/kr dk;kZy;kauh R;kaP;kdMs miyC/k vlysY;k ekfgrhP;k
vk/kkjs v'kk izdj.kakpk R;kaP;k Lrjkojp rikl.kh d:u fuiVkjk djkok-Þ
07] In that view of the matter, we allow the petition and direct the
respondents to give notional annual increment to the petitioner for having
completed one full year of service on the date of his superannuation/
retirement i.e. 30th June of the relevant year. Accordingly, the consequential
benefits due and payable shall be worked out by the respondents from the
period of three years preceding to the date of institution of the petition and
paid to the petitioner within the period of six weeks from the date of this
order.
08] Rule is made absolute in the aforestated terms with no order as
to costs.
(M.W. Chandwani, J.) (Avinash G. Gharote, J.)
*sandesh
