Gujarat High Court
Bharatkumar Popatlal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 11 April, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7752 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7796 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
===================================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
✔
===================================================
BHARATKUMAR POPATLAL PATEL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
===================================================
Appearance:
MS. PRACHI UPADHYAY for MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR. KM ANTANI(6547) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
===================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 11/04/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Issue RULE, returnable forthwith. Mr. K.M. Antani,
learned advocate waives service of Rule for and on behalf of the
respondent no.2 and Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned Assistant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
Government Pleader waives service of Rule for and on behalf of
the respondent nos. 1 and 3.
2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties, both the Petitions are heard finally.
3. Heard Ms. Prachi Upadhyay, learned advocate for Mr.
Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners,
Mr. K.M. Antani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent
no.2 and Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 3.
4. As the grievance raised by the petitioners in both
the petitions are selfsame, the petitions are heard analogously
and common order is passed in both the petitions, with the
consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
5. By way of the present petitions, petitioners herein
approached this Court being aggrieved by the discriminatory
treatment given to the petitioners herein by the respondent
authorities of not granting yearly increment for one full year of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
service rendered by the petitioners for the period from
01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022 (in case of SCA No. 7752 of 2023) and
the period from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2015 (in case of SCA No.
7796 of 2023)
6. The petitioners herein are as such entitled to the
yearly increments, for which the petitioners are otherwise
eligible, which has resulted in wrong fixation of pension of
the petitioners and the recurring financial loss to the
petitioners.
6.1. Ms. Prachi Upadhyay, learned advocate for Mr.
Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners herein have reached
the age of superannuation on 30.06.2022. At the time of
retirement from service, petitioner no.1 was working as
Bench Clerk, Grade-I and petitioner no.2 was working as
Havlaldar (SCA No. 7752 of 2023), copy of the office order is
duly produced at Annexure-A. Upon retirement of the
petitioners from service on 30.06.2022, the petitioners are
sanctioned pension, w.e.f. 01.07.2022, such pension payment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
orders are duly produced at Annexure-B.
6.2. It is the case of the petitioners that, before their
retirement from service, the petitioners had rendered one full
year of service from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022 and are
entitled to get the benefit of annual increment for the said
period of service. It is submitted that, as per the policy of
the Government, the said increment falls due on 01.07.2022.
The petitioners retired on 30.06.2022 and the petitioners were
not granted the benefits by the respondent authorities. The
present petition is filed on 13.04.2023, after the retirement.
6.3. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Division Bench in Misc. Civil Application (for
contempt) No. 257 of 2024 filed in Special Civil application
No. 11186 of 2023 and allied matters, wherein, the Hon'ble
Division Bench vide common oral order dated 26.03.2025
relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of C.P. Mundinamani and Ors., wherein, explanatory
note is reproduced in the order passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
6.4. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted
that the Hon'ble Division Bench has also stated in para-7 of
the said order that the issue of one increment, which has
been emanated from the judgment of the Supreme Court in
case of C.P. Mundinamani and Ors. has been followed by the
Court from time to time. The said directions having attained
finality, the ratio laid down in the said judgment is to be
followed.
7. Mr. K.M. Antani, learned advocate appearing for
the respondent no.2 is not in a position to controvert the
aforesaid position of law, as relied upon by Ms. Upadhyay,
learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties, this Court deems it fit to refer to the
order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Misc. Civil
Application (for contempt) No. 257 of 2024 filed in Special
Civil Application No. 11186 of 2023, wherein, relevant para-5
to 15 reads thus:
"5. Mr. Virk, learned Government Pleader for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
respondent-State has submitted that thereafter the Secretaries of
various Departments of the State Government had undertaken
exercise in order to implement the aforesaid order. It is
submitted that as per his understanding, the pending or disposed
cases can be categorized in three categories as observed by the
Supreme Court in the order dated 20 th February, 2025. It is also
submitted by him that the Supreme Court has also clarified that
in case any excess payment has already been paid to the
employees including arrears, such amount paid, will not be
recovered. Mr. Virk, learned Government Pleader for the
respondent - State has tendered the explanatory note as under :
"1. All issues pertaining to one increment have been
decided in rem by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Union of India & Anr. Versus M. Siddaraj (Misc.
Application Diary No.2400 of 2024 in Civil Appeal
No.3933 of 2023).
2. It is respectfully suggested that cases related to 'One
Increment' may be categorised in the following three
categories:
A. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
KPTCL (Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023) will be given
effect to in case of third parties from 11.04.2023; and
pension by taking into account one increment will be
payable on or after 01.05.2023, with it being clarified
that enhanced pension will not be paid for the period
prior to 31.04.2023.
B. For cases where:-
I. The judgment has not attained finality,
II. Cases where appeal has been preferred,
III. Cases where appeal - if filed - is entertained
by the appellate Court, the directions in 'b'
will not apply.
C. In cases where retired employees have filed
writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court and the said
writ petitions are pending as on 20.02.2025 (date of SC
order) one increment will be payable for a period of 3
years prior to the month in which the writ petition was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
filed, in terms of newly introduced direction "d" of the
SC Order.
The treatment to be given in terms clause "d" will
not apply to retired government employees who have
filed writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court after
the judgment dated 19.05.2023 in M. Siddaraj (Civil
Appeal No.3933 of 2023) and for such litigants who
have filed writ petition before this Hon'ble Court on
and after 19.05.2023 the treatment as envisaged in
clause "a" of the SC order would be given."
6.In response to the aforesaid submission, learned advocates
appearing for the respective employees have submitted that they
have apprehension that the State Government will not extend the
benefits as directed by the Supreme Court, hence liberty may be
reserved in favour of the employees to file appropriate
proceedings in case the respondent - State authorities faulters in
implementing the directions of this Court and also in any cases
consequential recovery is made from such employees in whose
favour the judgments of this Court are already implemented and
they are already extended the benefit of one increment.
6.1 Learned advocates appearing for the employees have
further urged that the direction issued by the Supreme Court may
be further clarified so that the same may not lead to an
anomalous situation leading to further litigation.
7.The issue of one increment, which emanated from the judgment
of the Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani and Ors.
(supra) has been followed by this Court in various judgments and
orders either passed by the learned Single Judges or by the
Division Benches. It appears that thereafter Misc. Civil Application
for review or clarification was filed before the Supreme Court and
initially the Supreme Court, in the order dated 6 th September,
2024, clarified the directions issued in the said judgment of C.P.
Mundinamani and Ors. (supra) and four directions were
incorporated by the Supreme Court for extending the benefit of
one increment.
8.Accordingly, numerous petitions, contempt applications and
Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of in line of the order dated
6th September, 2024. However, the Supreme Court finally, in the
order dated 20th February, 2025, has further clarified the order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
dated 6th September, 2024. An attempt is made by the learned
Government Pleader and the learned advocates appearing for the
employees to further clarify the directions issued by the Supreme
Court in the aforementioned orders. The learned advocates
appearing for the employees have raised an apprehension that the
State will not pay the benefit of one increment as per the orders
passed by the Apex Court.
9.We cannot either substitute or further issue any clarificatory
directions to the order dated 20th February, 2025 issued by the
Supreme Court. We can also neither supplement nor supplant.
The State Government cannot implement the directions of the
Supreme Court by its own understanding either putting a new
clause or fresh explanation to the order dated 20 th February,
2025. The order passed by the Supreme Court dated 20 th
February, 2025 is self-explanatory, and we do not find that any
further directions are required to be issued, except that the State
Government shall follow the directions issued by the Supreme
Court in letter and spirit. The Supreme Court has already clarified
that in case any excess payment has already been made to the
employees, such amount paid, will not be recovered. Thus, it is
not open for the State Government or the Statutory Bodies to
affect any recovery from the employees who have been extended
the benefit of one increment as directed by this Court in various
judgments in case of each of the employees except in those cases
where the employees are not entitled as per law.
10. We can only further clarify that in case the respondent
State authorities falter in implementing the directions issued by
the Supreme Court and in case the benefit of one increment,
which is yet to be paid to the number of employees of the State
of Gujarat, is not paid as directed by the Apex Court, and they
are aggrieved by such action, either of recovery or fixation of
increment, it will be open for them to file appropriate
proceedings before appropriate forum.
11. We further direct that in case the benefit of one
increment or arrears remains unpaid to the employees, the State
Government shall extend such benefits to them within a period of
four months.
12. It is also noticed by us that various matters are filed by
the employees through their respective Union/ Associations/
Mandals. In such matters, such Unions/Associations/Mandals shall
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
instruct all its individual members to file a representation before
their parent departments giving all their service details. After
such details are received, the State Government /Department shall
extend the benefit of one increment, as directed by the Supreme
Court in the order dated 20th February, 2025.
13. At this stage, Mr. Virk, learned Government Pleader has
submitted that there are more than 32,000 applications, which
are required to be scrutinized, hence it is urged by him that the
limitation of four months, as fixed by this Court, may further be
extended to six months. The request is acceded to. We direct all
the departments of the State Government to verify the cases of
each of the individuals and upon such verification, the
benefit/arrears of increment shall be extended within a period of
six months.
14. It is further clarified that the retired employees, who
were serving and have retired from the Statutory bodies having
the pension scheme, shall only be entitled to the benefit of one
increment.
15. Thus, all the proceedings are disposed of in terms of
the order dated 20 th February, 2025 passed by the Supreme
Court."
9. In light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court and upon harmonious reading with the order
passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Misc. Civil
Application (for contempt) No. 257 of 2024 filed in Special
Civil Application No. 11186 of 2023, it emerges that the case
of the petitioners herein is governed by the directions issued
in the aforesaid order dated 26.03.2025, as the said issue of
one increment has attained finality.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
10. The respondent authorities to act accordingly and
needful be done within a period of three months from the
receipt of the copy of the order.
Both the Petitions stand ALLOWED accordingly. Rule is
made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
Pradhyuman
