Union Of India vs Lallubhai J. Kartaria S/O Jivanbhai ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8565 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Union Of India vs Lallubhai J. Kartaria S/O Jivanbhai ... on 11 December, 2023

Author: Umesh A. Trivedi

Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi

                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/SCA/18905/2023                           ORDER DATED: 11/12/2023

                                                                                   undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18905 of 2023
==========================================================
                              UNION OF INDIA
                                  Versus
               LALLUBHAI J. KARTARIA S/O JIVANBHAI KATARIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PY DIVYESHVAR(2482) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

                             Date : 11/12/2023

                              ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI)

[1] Heard learned advocate Mr. P. Y. Divyeshvar for the

petitioner-Union of India.

[2] This Special Civil Application is directed against order dated

14th June 2023 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad

Bench, Ahmedabad in Original Application No. 455 of 2021,

whereby the Tribunal held that the applicant, who retired on 30 th

June 2015 was entitled to receive increment falling due on the next

day, that is on 1st July. It was directed to pay the applicant the

consequential benefits along with arrears within stipulated time.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18905/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2023

undefined

[3] The Tribunal gave declaration that the employee is entitled to

the benefit of increment. It was on the basis of the law laid down in

Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani &

Ors., which was Civil Appeal No. 247 of 2023.

[4] The issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of

the Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani (Supra). Also the Division

Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Pravinbhai Khemabhai

Patel, which was Letters Patent Appeal No.941 of 2023 decided on

7th August 2023, dealt with the same issue.

[4.1] The Supreme Court considered the very question in the

Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P.Mundinamani &

ors., whether the employee would be earning the annual increment

falling on the very next day of retirement. That question fell for

consideration before the Supreme Court in the context of Rule

40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service

Regulations, 1997.

[4.1.1] The Supreme Court noted that on this issue various

High Courts have taken divergent views,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18905/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2023

undefined

"6.3 At this stage, it is required to be noted that there are divergent views of various High Courts on the issue involved. The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the Kerala High Court have taken a contrary view and have taken the view canvassed on behalf of the appellants. On the other hand, the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi high Court in the case of Gopal Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 10509/2019 decided on 23.01.2020); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ A No. 13299/2020 decided on 29.06.2021); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal Vs. State of Odisha and Anr. (Writ Petition No.17715/2020 decided on 30.07.2021); and the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (Letters Patent Appeal No. 868/2021) have taken a divergent view than the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and have taken the view that once an employee has earned the increment on completing one year service he cannot be denied the benefit of such annual increment on his attaining the age of superannuation and/or the day of retirement on the very next day."

[4.1.2] It was observed by the Apex Court regarding the object

of grant of annual increment in paragraph No. 6.5 of C. P.

Mundinamani (supra),

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18905/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2023

undefined

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."

[4.1.3] It was observed by the Supreme Court that the manner

in which the authorities understood the rule and applied to deny

the increments, would lead to arbitrariness and would amount to

deny the government servant the benefit of annual increment

which he has earned while rendering specific period of service with

good conduct and efficiently in the last preceding year.

[4.1.4] It was observed by the Supreme Court,

"It would be punishing a person for no fault of him. As observed hereinabove, 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18905/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2023

undefined

entitled to for rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiently and therefore, such a narrow interpretation should be avoided."

[4.1.5] The Supreme Court then stated that it was in

agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in P.

Ayyamperumal vs. Union of India. Extracting para 6.7 from the

judgment of the supreme court,

"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 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)."

[5] In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, no

interference is called for in the impugned order of Central

Administrative Tribunal. The petition is dismissed.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J)

(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) CHANDRESH