Gujarat High Court

Devkaran Popatbhai Surani vs State Of Gujarat on 4 December, 2023

Author: Nikhil S. Kariel

Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel

                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




    C/SCA/20204/2023                            ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

                                                                                undefined




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20204 of 2023
                                With
            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20172 of 2023
                                With
            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20180 of 2023
                                With
            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20216 of 2023
                                With
            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20220 of 2023
                                With
            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20221 of 2023
==========================================================
                       DEVKARAN POPATBHAI SURANI
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:

(in SCA No.20204/2023)
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
 for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ADITYA PATHAK, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1

(in SCA No.20172/2023)
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioner(s) No.1
MR AYAAN PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

(in SCA No.20180/2023)
MR PIYUSH B TRIVEDI for the Petitioner No.1
MS NIRALI SARDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

(in SCA No. 20216/2023)
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioners
MS NIRALI SARDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

(in SCA No.20220/2023)
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioners
MR ADITYA PATHA, AGP for the Respondent No(s). 1

(in SCA No.20221/2023)
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioners
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================


                                Page 1 of 27

                                                    Downloaded on : Tue Dec 05 20:42:53 IST 2023
                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




  C/SCA/20204/2023                                  ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

                                                                                   undefined




CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                            Date : 04/12/2023
                             ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.N.K.Majmudar and learned

Advocate Mr.Piyush Trivedi on behalf of the petitioners

and learned Assistant Government Pleaders Mr.Sahil

Trivedi, Mr.Aditya Pathak, Ms.Nirali Sarda and

Mr.Ayaan Patel on behalf of the respondent - State in

respective petitions.

1.1. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar seeks permission

to amend the cause title of Special Civil Application

No.20180/2023. The permission is granted.

Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant

Government Pleaders waive service of rule on behalf of

the respondent - State in respective petitions.

3. These Group of petitions seek similar directions from

this Court and therefore, all these matters are taken up

together.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

4. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocates

for the petitioners, it would appear that all of the

petitioners have retired on 30 th June of various years and

whereas they have been denied benefit of increment

which fell due on the 1st July. It would appear that the

State respondents have relied upon Rule 39 of the

Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 to deny the

benefit of one increment and consequential benefits to

the petitioners whereas, it would be a submission on

behalf of the petitioners that the issue is no more res

integra more particularly since various learned

Coordinate Benches of this Court including Hon'ble

Division Benches of this Court having taken a view in

favour of the persons similarly situated to the present

petitioners.

5. Learned Advocates for the petitioners would also draw

the attention of this Court to a decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023

[SLP(C) No.9185/2020] in case of The Director

(Admin. and HR) KPTCL and Ors. vs.

C.P.Mundinamani and Ors., dated 11.04.2023 and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

would submit that a decision of the Hon'ble Division

Bench of this Court as well as decisions of the other

High Courts have been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the said decision.

5.1. Learned Advocates on behalf of the petitioners

would submit that since the issue having been

concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same

being binding on the State of Gujarat also, the request

of the petitioners for direction to the State to pay

benefit of one increment along with all consequential

benefits may be granted.

6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of learned

Advocates for the petitioners, while it would appear that

there are decisions of learned Coordinate Benches

taking a view in favour of the persons similarly situated

to the petitioners and whereas, it would also appear that

such view has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division

Benches and whereas, it would appear that the decision

of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of State

of Gujarat vs. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara [Letters

Patent Appeal No. 868 of 2021; Dt.27.04.2022] has

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of

Director (Admin. and HR) KPTCL and Others

(supra).

6.1. At this stage, this Court also feels it appropriate to

state that Rule 39 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay)

Rules, 2002 being relied upon by the State

respondents, is almost pari materia to Regulation

40(1) of the Regulations which were in question

before the Hon'ble Apex Court, based upon which, the

official respondent i.e. the appellant before the

Hon'ble Apex Court had denied the benefit of one

increment to the employee. It would appear that the

proviso to Rule 39 which is being relied upon by the

official respondents reads as follows:-

"Provided that the increment shall be admissible from the 1st of the month, in which, it accrues."

It would appear that Regulation 40(1) also speaks

almost in the same language which reads as follows:-

"An increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned."

In this regard, this Court seeks to rely and refer to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of The

Director (Admin. and HR) KPTCL and Ors. (supra) at

paragraph nos. 6.4, 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7. The same being

relevant, are reproduced herein below for benefit:-

"6.4 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that the annual increment is in the form of incentive and to encourage an employee to perform well and therefore, once he is not in service, there is no question of grant of annual increment is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. In a given case, it may happen that the employee earns the increment three days before his date of superannuation and therefore, even according to the Regulation 40(1) increment is accrued on the next day in that case also such an employee would not have one year service thereafter. It is to be noted that increment is earned on one year past service rendered in a time scale. Therefore, the aforesaid submission is not to be accepted.

6.5 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that as the increment has accrued on the next day on which it is earned and therefore, even in a case where an employee has earned the increment one day prior to his retirement but he is not in service the day on which the increment is accrued is concerned, while considering the aforesaid issue, the object and purpose of grant of annual increment is required to be considered. A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (one year) with good conduct efficiently. Merely because, the government servant has retired on the very next day, how can he be denied the annual increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to for rendering the service with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding one year. In the case of Gopal Singh (supra) in paragraphs 20, 23 and 24, the Delhi High Court has observed and held as under: -

(para 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

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."

(para 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."

(para 24)

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

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."

6.6 The Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra) while dealing with the same issue has observed and held in paragraph 24 as under: -

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

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."

6.7 Similar view has also been expressed by different High Courts, namely, the Gujarat High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Orissa High Court and the Madras High Court. As observed herein above, to interpret Regulation

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

40(1) of the Regulations in the manner in which the appellants have understood and/or interpreted would lead to arbitrariness and denying a government servant the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned while rendering specified period of service with good conduct and efficiently in the last preceding year. It would be punishing a person for no fault of him. As observed herein above, the increment can be withheld only by way of punishment or he has not performed the duty efficiently. Any interpretation which would lead to arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness should be avoided. If the interpretation as suggested on behalf of the appellants and the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is accepted, in that case it would tantamount to denying a government servant the annual increment which he has earned for the services he has rendered over a year subject to his good behaviour. 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. In the present case the word "accrue" should be understood liberally and would mean payable on the succeeding day. Any contrary view would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness and denying a government servant legitimate one annual increment though he is entitled to for rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiently and therefore, such a narrow interpretation should be avoided. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria (supra); the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal (supra); and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra). We do not approve the contrary view taken by the Full Bench

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh (supra) and the decisions of the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Pavithran (O.P. (CAT) No. 111/2020 decided on 22.11.2022) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Hari Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020)."

6.2. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court, more particularly also confirming the view

taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, this

Court is inclined to accept the submission made on

behalf of the petitioners that the issue is no more rest

integra and whereas, the issue stands decided.

7. At this stage, learned AGP for the respondent - State

would submit that while the issue of payment of one

increment to such employees who have retired on 30 th

June of the said year would not be res integra any more,

yet, learned AGP has sought to make submissions as

regards payment of arrears to the petitioners.

7.1. Learned AGP would submit that a learned

Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Takhatsinh

Udesinh Songara vs. State of Gujarat [Special

Civil Application No.10308/2021] vide order dated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

11.08.2021 had directed grant of benefit of one

increment to the petitioner therein and had further

directed to revise his pension. It is submitted that the

said decision had been confirmed by the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal

No.868/2021 vide judgment dated 27.04.2022. It is

further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court had been confirmed by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of C.P.Mundinamani

(supra) which has been relied upon by the petitioners.

It is submitted that neither the learned Coordinate

Bench nor the Hon'ble Division Bench nor the Hon'ble

Apex Court had directed payment of arrears.

7.2. Learned AGP would submit that even in a recent

decision dated 20.07.2023, a learned Coordinate

Bench in Special Civil Application No.10223/2023 had

not made any observations as regards payment of

arrears. It is thus submitted that in view of the ratio

in the said decisions of not granting arrears, this

Court also may not grant arrears in favour of the

petitioners.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

7.3. It is further submitted that a learned Coordinate

Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.08.2023 in

Special Civil Application No.15385/2021 and allied

matters had inter alia directed the State Government

to come up with directives and modalities as regards

the question of payment of one increment to such

similarly situated employees and whereas, the State is

contemplating coming out with a Government

Resolution whereby the State is proposing to grant

benefit to all such similarly situated employees who

have retired on the 30th June and whereas such grant

of benefits by the State Government is proposed with

prospective effect only. Learned AGP would submit

that since the State is coming out with a modality as

per the direction of a learned Coordinate Bench and

since the said modality also does not envisage

retrospective applicability, therefore also, it is

requested that this Court may not grant arrears.

7.4. Learned AGP would also refer to a decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra

vs. Bhagwan and others, reported in (2022) 4

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

SCC 193 and would submit that the Hon'ble Apex

Court had inter alia observed that the Court should

refrain from interfering with policy decision which

might have a cascading effect and having financial

implications. Thus submitting, learned AGP would

request this Court not to grant any arrears to the

petitioners.

8. As against such submissions, learned Advocates for the

petitioners would draw the attention of this Court to a

decision of learned Coordinate Bench dated 20.07.2022

in Special Civil Application No.13489/2022 in case of

Pravinbhai Khemabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat

where the learned Coordinate Bench had inter alia

directed payment of benefits along with arrears in a

similar situation. Learned Advocates would further point

out to a decision of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court

(Coram:- Mrs.Sunita Agarwal, Hon'ble the Chief Justice

and Mr.N.V.Anjaria, J.) in Letters Patent Appeal

No.941/2023 dated 07.08.2023, whereby the Hon'ble

Division Bench had confirmed the decision of the learned

Single Judge.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

8.1. Learned Advocates would submit that relying upon

the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in case of

Pravinbhai Khemabhai Patel (supra), the Hon'ble

Division Bench (Coram: Mr.N.V.Anjaria and Mr.Devan

M.Desai, JJ.) in Letters Patent Appeal

No.1184/2023 had inter alia not accepted the

contention of delay and had further directed payment

of arrears.

8.2. Learned Advocates would submit that since there is

no decision whereby payment of arrears has been

expressly rejected and whereas since there are

decisions of Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court

whereby either the Hon'ble Division Bench had

confirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge of

granting benefits with arrears or had directed

payment of arrears, therefore, such observations may

be binding on this Court rather than decisions

whereby the Hon'ble Division Bench or the Hon'ble

Apex Court as the case may be have not specifically

excluded the benefit of arrears to the petitioners.

9. Heard learned Advocates on the issue of payment of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

arrears. Insofar as the said is concerned, at the outset, it

is required to be mentioned that in the decisions cited by

learned AGP, there is no positive direction by any Court

i.e. either of a learned Coordinate Bench or of a Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court or by the Hon'ble Apex

Court whereby the employees have been specifically

excluded from entitlement of arrears. On the other hand,

it would appear that there are decisions of leaned

Coordinate Benches as well as of Hon'ble Division

Benches of this Court whereby either the express

direction of the learned Coordinate Bench has been

confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench or the Hon'ble

Division Bench has issued express direction for grant of

arrears. In this view of the matter, it would be relevant

to adjudge which of the decisions would be binding on

this Court.

9.1. In this regard, it would be profitable to refer to an

order of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2023

SCC OnLine 586 in case of Career Institute

Educational Society vs. Om Shree Thakurji

Educational Society. Paragraph nos.6, 7 and 8 of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

the said decision being relevant for the present

purpose are reproduced herein below for benefit:-

"6. The distinction between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi in a judgment, as a proposition of law, has been examined by several judgments of this Court, but we would like to refer to two, namely, State of Gujarat v. Utility Users' Welfare Association3 and Jayant Verma v. Union of India4.

7. The first judgment in State of Gujarat (supra) applies, what is called, "the inversion test" to identify what is ratio decidendi in a judgment. To test whether a particular proposition of law is to be treated as the ratio decidendi of the case, the proposition is to be inversed, i.e. to remove from the text of the judgment as if it did not exist. If the conclusion of the case would still have been the same even without examining the proposition, then it cannot be regarded as the ratio decidendi of the case.

8. In Jayant Verma (supra), this Court has referred to an earlier decision of this Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab5 to state that it is not the findings of material facts, direct and inferential, but the statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts, which is the vital element in the decision and operates as a precedent. Even the conclusion does not operate as a precedent, albeit operates as res judicata. Thus, it is not everything said by a Judge when giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding as a legal precedent is the principle upon which the case is decided and, for this reason, it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the obiter dicta."

9.2. In the above order, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

inter alia clarified the distinction between Obiter

Dicta and Ration Decidendi. Such a discussion

appears in terms of finding out what would be the

binding precedent in a decision and whereas, the

Hon'ble Apex Court relies upon two earlier decisions

of the Hon'ble Apex Court namely in case of State of

Gujarat vs. Utility Users Welfare Association,

reported in (2018) 6 SCC 21 whereby the Hon'ble

Apex Court has referred to the inversion test to

identify the Ratio Decidendi of a judgment. The test

being if a particular proposition of law is to be treated

as a ratio decidendi then the said proposition is to be

inversed or removed from the text of the judgment

and whereas if the conclusion of the case would still

have been the same even without examining the

proposition, then the said proposition cannot be

termed as a ratio decidendi. In the second decision of

Jayant Varma vs. Union of India reported in

(2018) 4 SCC 743, the Hon'ble Apex Court had inter

alia observed that statements of principles of law

applicable to the legal problems disclosed by facts

which is the vital element in a decision and whereas,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

the same would operate as a precedent.

9.3. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court, it could be safely deduced that in the line

of decisions referred to by learned AGP, there is no

proposition at all laid down by either learned

Coordinate Bench or the Hon'ble Division Bench or

the Hon'ble Apex Court and whereas under such

circumstances, in the considered opinion of this

Court, none of the Courts referred to herein above

have set out any proposition in terms of denying

arrears to the petitioners therein and whereas there is

no statement of principles of law with regard to

arrears. Thus, on the issue of arrears none of the

decisions relied upon by the learned AGP would have

any binding effect.

10. Furthermore, insofar as the decisions relied upon

by learned Advocates for the petitioners, it would appear

that the learned Coordinate Bench in case of Pravinbhai

Khemabhai Patel (supra) had specifically directed the

payment of arrears to the petitioners therein and

whereas the said decision had been confirmed by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 07.08.2023 in

Letters Patent Appeal No.941/2023 more particularly

whereby the Hon'ble Division Bench had specifically

noted that the issue involved was not only consequential

revision but payment of pension as well as payment of

arrears. The Hon'ble Division Bench having noted as

above had rejected the Letters Patent Appeal.

10.1. It would also appear that in a later decision of

Chhaganbhai Ramabhai Patel (supra), the Hon'ble

Division Bench relying upon the decision of

Pravinbhai Khemabhai Patel (supra) had directed

grant of arrears arising because of grant of

increment. Again, in the considered opinion of this

Court, while it would appear that there has not been

any proposition of law laid down by the learned

Coordinate Benches or the Hon'ble Division Benches

as regards entitlement of the arrears, yet, in view of

the fact that the Hon'ble Division Bench has

confirmed decision of a learned Single Judge directing

grant of arrears, in the considered opinion of this

Court, such a decision would have a better binding

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

precedent upon this Court rather than decisions

whereby the Courts have not expressed any opinion

as regards payment or non-payment of arrears as the

case may be.

11. At this stage, it would be further relevant to

mention that in Special Civil Application No.10223/2023

relied upon by the learned AGP, while it is contended

that arrears have not been granted, yet, the learned

Coordinate Bench has observed that "once the pension is

revised, the respondents are directed to release the

consequential benefits, if the petitioners are otherwise

found eligible, to the petitioners within a period of two

months thereafter." In the considered opinion of this

Court, the consequential benefits would be nothing else

but the arrears which would accrue in favour of the

petitioners therein upon revision of pension. Under such

circumstances, it could not be stated that Courts are

constantly taking a view against the grant of arrears.

12. Insofar as the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

case of Bhagwan (supra), it would appear that the case

before the Hon'ble Apex Court was with regard to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

direction of the High Court to the State Government to

extend pensionary benefits to an institute more

particularly the institute functioning under the World

Bank Project of Irrigation Department and whereas, it

would also appear that the State Government had

specifically decided not to grant any pensionary benefits

to the employees working in grant-in-aid institutions as

well as corporations etc. It was in light of such facts that

the High Court directed the State to extend pensionary

benefits to employees of the institution and whereas it is

in such a context that the Hon'ble Apex Court had

observed that Court should not interfere with a policy

decision which might have cascading effect and financial

implications.

13. In the considered opinion of this Court, as of now,

there is no policy decision to pay to the persons like the

petitioners benefit of one increment without arrears and

whereas on the other hand it would be relevant to

mention that the entitlement of the petitioners is not

questioned at all. The only question is with regard to

payment of arrears and whereas, since unlike other

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

benefits, the benefit of one increment was otherwise

required to be paid to the petitioners as and when they

had retired more particularly as noted by the Hon'ble

Apex Court, payment of increment is concomitant upon

the good services rendered by an employee for the whole

year. Consequently, if the employee is otherwise entitled

to payment of one increment as a mark of the good

services rendered by him and whereas, failure on the

part of State Authorities to pay the entitlement at the

relevant point of time, would not empower the State to

contend that non-payment of arrears is within the realm

of a policy of the State and that this Court may not

interfere. Again, it requires mention that while as on

date there is no policy of the State Government whereby

persons like the petitioners are denied arrears,

nonetheless, it would also require mention that a policy

which contemplates denial to employees of their

legitimate dues probably may not stand the test of

scrutiny.

13.1. Be that as it may, as noted herein above,

since there is no policy of the State in this regard, this

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

Court refrains itself from making any further

observations in this regard. Suffice it to state that

since right to be paid increment is the legitimate right

of an employee upon successful completion of a year

of employment, the contention of the respondents

cannot be countenanced and whereas, the

respondents are required to be directed to pay to the

petitioners arrears also.

14. Having regard to the above discussion,

observations and conclusion and since this Court is

taking up a group of matters with varied respondents,

appropriate directions to ensure proper verification of

individual cases is required to be passed. Hence, the

following directions are passed:-

(i) The petitioners shall make an application for grant

of one increment which accrued in their favour on the

date after their retirement with a copy of this order

before the official respondent/appropriate appointing

authority. Such an application shall be made by the

petitioners within a period of two (02) weeks from the

date of receipt of this order.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20204/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2023

undefined

(ii) Upon such application being received by the

concerned official respondent/appropriate appointing

authority, the official respondents/ appropriate

appointing authority shall verify the date of

retirement of the petitioner and whereas, if the date

of retirement of the petitioner would be on the 30 th

June of the year in question, it would be deemed that

the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of one

increment due from the next date.