Gujarat High Court
Janmahmad Hebatkhan Sidi vs State Of Gujarat on 5 December, 2023
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20287 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20281 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20279 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20280 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20253 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20244 of 2023
==========================================================
JANMAHMAD HEBATKHAN SIDI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR AYAAN PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 05/12/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, on behalf of the
petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ayaan
Patel on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government
Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent - State.
3. These Group of petitions seek similar directions from this
Court and therefore, all these matters are taken up together.
4. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocates for
the petitioners, it would appear that all of the petitioners have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
retired on 30th June of various years and whereas they have been
denied benefit of increment which fell due on the 1 st 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
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 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
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, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
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 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
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 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
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 30th 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.
8. 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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
8.1 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.
8.2 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.
9. 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 SCC 193 and would submit that the
Hon'ble Apex Court had inter alia observed that the Court shout
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
10. 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.
10.1 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.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.
11. Heard learned Advocates on the issue of payment of arrears.
Insofar as the said is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
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.
11.1 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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
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."
11.2. In the above order, the Hon'ble Apex Court has 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, the same would operate as a precedent.
11.3 Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
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.
12. 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 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.
12.1 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
directing grant of arrears, in the considered opinion of this Court,
such a decision would have a better binding 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
cascading effect and financial implications.
15. 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 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.
15.1 Be that as it may, as noted herein above, since there is no
policy of the State in this regard, this 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
16. 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.
(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 30th 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.
(iii) Upon such verification as above, the respondents/
appropriate appointing authorities are directed to pay the
increment due to the petitioner and whereas the
respondents/appropriate appointing authorities are also
directed to revise the pension and other retiral benefits
including all consequential benefits and arrears thereof as
available to the petitioners.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20287/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
(iv) The above exercise shall be completed by the
official respondents/appropriate appointing authorities
within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of
receipt of the application preferred by the petitioner.
(v) It is clarified that in case the official respondents/
appropriate appointing authorities do not complete the
exercise within a period of eight weeks as stated herein
above including making payment to the present petitioners
within such time, then the petitioners shall be entitled to
claim interest at the rate of 6% from the date such amount
fell due till the date of payment.
(vi) In case, any of the petitioners are aggrieved by
the verification conducted by the official
respondents/appropriate appointing authority, it would be
open for such petitioners to make application for revival of
their petitions.
17. With these observations and directions, present petitions
stand disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. Consequently, Civil Application, if any, also stands
disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Radhika
