Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shankar Lal Malviya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh School ... on 16 June, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
W.P. No.13295/2023
IN THE HIGH COURTOF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 16th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 13295 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHANKAR LAL MALVIYA S/O SHRI VADAJI MALVIYA, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RTD. ASST. TEACHER GOVT.
1. PRIMARY SCHOOL SONDA TEHSIL DEWAS DISTRICT DEWAS
VILLAGE KABADI POST AGAROD TEHSIL DEWAS DISTRICT
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
BADRI LAL MALVIYA S/O SHRI LAXMAN MALVIYA, AGED ABOUT
65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RTD. TEACHER, SHRI N.V.M. GOVT. H.S.
2.
SCHOOL NO.1, DEWAS, DISTRICT-DEWAS, (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI KISHORI LAL PUROHIT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SCHOOL EDUCATION
1. DEPARTMENT THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH
BHAWAN, DISTRICT BHOPAL. (MADHYA PRADESH)
COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS M.P. DIRECTORATE OF
2. PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, GAUTAM NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER PENSION OFFICE DIVISIONAL
3. PENSION OFFICER, UJJAIN DIVISION, BHARATPURI, UJJAIN M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SCHOOL EDUCATION
4. DEPARTMENT DISTRICT DEWAS, A.B. ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
DISTRICT TRESURY OFFICER DISTRICT TRESURY OFFICE
5.
DISTRICT RATLAM, RATLAM M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUDARSHAN JOSHI, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
- : 2 :-
W.P. No.13295/2023
RESPONDENTS/STATE ON ADVANCE COPY.)
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking release of
last increment which became due to him on 1.7.2019 and 1.7.2021
respectively.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner
stood retired from service respectively on 30.6.2019 and 30.6.2021.
The respondents have denied them the increment which was payable
w.e.f. 1.7.2019 and 1.7.2021 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
- : 3 :-
W.P. No.13295/2023
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 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.
Heard.
5. Learned Govt. 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
- : 4 :-
W.P. No.13295/2023
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
(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
- : 5 :-
W.P. No.13295/2023
increment which fell due on 1.7.2019 and 1.7.2021 to the petitioners
and also to revise their retiral dues and be paid to them. 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: 2023.06.18 13:15:02 +05'30'
