Shivram Nagraj vs Tribal Welfare Department
2023 Latest Caselaw 11201 MP

                               - : 1 :-
                                                       W.P. No.15564/2020



     IN THE HIGH COURTOF MADHYA PRADESH
                  AT I N D O R E
                             BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

                   ON THE 19th OF JULY, 2023

                 WRIT PETITION No. 15564 of 2020

BETWEEN:-
SHIVRAM NAGRAJ S/O LATE SHRI GOPALJI NAGRAJ, AGED ABOUT
70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PANSIONER SAWANTPURAM COLONY,
ASHAGRAM ROAD BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                    .....PETITIONER
(SHRI LOKENDRA GANGAREKAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER.)

AND
   TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONER SATPUDA
1.
   BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SHRIMAN SAHAYAK AYUKT JANJATIYA KARYA VIBHAG
2.
   BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SHRIMAN VIKAS KHAND SHIKHSHA ADHIKARI ADIVASI VIKAS
3.
   KHAND BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
(MS. ASHI VAIDYA, LEARNED             PANEL    LAWYER     FOR      THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE.)


      This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed
the following:
                              ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking release of last increment which became due to him on 1.7.2012.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired from service on 30.4.2012. The respondents have denied

- : 2 :-

W.P. No.15564/2020

them the increment which was payable w.e.f. 1.7.2012 i.e. after the date of their 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 rendcering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently.

4. Learned Panel Lawyer 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 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.

- : 3 :-

W.P. No.15564/2020

Heard.

5. Learned Panel Lawyer 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 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

- : 4 :-

W.P. No.15564/2020

(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).

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 the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."

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 1.7.2012 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.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV Date: 2023.07.21 12:12:38 +05'30'