Gujarat High Court
Union Of India vs Mehbub Padhiyar S/O Rahimbhai ... on 9 October, 2023
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17671/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17671 of 2023
==========================================================
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
MEHBUB PADHIYAR S/O RAHIMBHAI PADHIYAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 09/10/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the petitioner
Union of India.
2. The petitioner seeks to call in question the order dated
14.06.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Ahmedabad Bench in Original Application No.223/2022. Thereby
the Tribunal held that the applicant, who retired on 30.06.2020,
was entitled to receive increment falling due on 01.07.2020. It was
directed to pay the applicant the consequential benefits along with
arrears within stipulated time.
3. While giving such declaration regarding entitlement of the
petitioner, the Central Administrative Tribunal relied on the
decision of the Supreme Court in the Director (Admn. and HR)
KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., which was Civil
Appeal No.247 of 2023 before it.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17671/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2023
undefined
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 07.08.2023, 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,
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17671/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2023
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17671/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2023
undefined
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 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17671/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2023
undefined
"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 present petition is dismissed.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
Y.N. VYAS
