Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tej Ram Choudhary vs School Education Department on 28 August, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 28th OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 16069 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
TEJ RAM CHOUDHARY S/O SHRI RAM
KRISHNA CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. ASST. VILLAGE
POST KUDANA TEH. SANWER (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KISHORILAL PUROHIT-ADVOCATE))
AND
SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
1.
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION (DPI) GAUTAM NAGAR
2.
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER SATELLITE
BHAWAN, COLLECTOR CAMPUS (MADHYA
3.
PRADESH)
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER BADA
4. GANPATI (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER INDORE
5. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH- ADVOCATE))
______________________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 28-08-2023
17:54:10
2
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking release of last
increment which became due to him on 01.07.2020.
2 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
stood 1 retired from service on 30.06.2020. The respondents have denied
him the increment which was payable w.e.f. 01.07.2020 i.e. after the
date of his retirement. Earlier, this issue came up for consideration
before this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari V/s. State of
M.P. (W.P. No.18030/2019 decided on 3.12.2019) whereby the petition
was allowed by directing the respondents/State to extend benefit of
increment fell due on 1.7.2015 and accordingly the retiral dues be
revised and paid. The aforesaid order was challenged by the State of
M.P. by way of W.A. No.363/2020 and vide order dated 6.3.2020 the
same has been dismissed.
3. Similar orders were passed by different High Courts and one
of the matters travelled up to the Supreme Court in the case of The
Director (Admn. and H.R.) KPTCL & others V/s. C.P. Mundinamani &
others (Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 recently decided on 11.4.2023) and
the apex Court has upheld the decision of the High Court whereby
direction was given to grant one annual increment which the original
writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their
services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good
behaviour and efficiently.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State, submits
that in W.A. No.717/2016 (State of M.P. & others V/s. Arun Kumar
Shrivastava) similar issue came up for consideration before the Division
Bench of this Court and vide order dated 10.7.2017 the Division Bench
allowed the writ appeal and quashed the order passed by the writ Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 28-08-2023
17:54:10
and dismissed the writ petition. This judgment was not brought to the
knowledge of the Bench in the case of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari (supra).
Hence, order passed in W.A. No.717/2016 is liable to be followed and
this writ petition be dismissed. 2 Heard.
5. Learned Panel Advocate appearing for the respondents/State
is right in submitting that the earlier judgment shall prevail, but in the
present case the apex has now decided the issue which is binding on
High Court. Hence, the issue is no more res integra. Para 6.7 and 7 of
the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of The Director
(Admn. and HR) KPTCL (supra) are reproduced below :
"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
hereinabove, to interpret Regulation 40(1) of the
Regulations in the manner in which the appellants
have understood and/or interpretated 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 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
crystallizes when the government servant completes
requisite length of service with good conduct and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 28-08-2023
17:54:10
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 Co ur t 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).7. In view of
the above and for the reasons stated above, the
Division Bench of the High Court has rightly
directed the appellants to grant one annual
increment which the original writ petitioners earned
on the last day of their service for rendering their
services preceding one year from the date of
retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We
are in complete agreement with the view taken by
the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the
circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in
he facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be
noorder as to costs."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 28-08-2023
17:54:10
6 In view of the above, this petition deserves to be and is
hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of one
annual increment which fell due on 1.7.2020 to the petitioner and also
to revise his retiral dues and be paid to him. Let the whole exercise be
completed within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
C c as per rules.
(Subodh Abhyankar)
Judge
amol
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 28-08-2023
17:54:10
