Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devi Prasad Vyas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 19 th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 13051 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
DEVI PRASAD VYAS S/O SHRI ISHWAR LAL VYAS, AGED
ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RTD. ASST. TEACHER
69, SETHJI KA BAZAR, RATLAM DISTT. RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KISHORI LAL PUROHIT - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. C O M M I S S I O N E R TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT
D EPARTM EN T SATPUDA BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TRIBAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISTRICT
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DISTRICT RATLAM,
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MUKESH PARWAL - G.A.)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking release of last
increment which became due to him on 1.7.2018.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 20-06-2023
17:37:58
2. Counsel for petitioner submits that the present petition may be
disposed off in view of the judgment dated 12.5.2023 passed by co-ordinate
bench at Indore in WP No.10727/2022 Dr. Hemant Kumar Rawal Vs. Ayush
Department & Ors.
3. Counsel for State submits that the petitioner is seeking a direction for
grant of regular annual increment which was due on 01.07.2018 after completion
of one year of service from previous increment of the date of retirement
30.06.2018. The said issue is pending for consideration before the full bench.
He has cited order of Full Bench dated 20.1.2021. In the said case, a reference
was made to the pendency of SLP before the Apex Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood
retired from service on 30.6.2018. The respondents have denied him the
increment which was payable w.e.f. 1.7.2018 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.
5. 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
Signature Not Verified
increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 20-06-2023
17:37:58
service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of
retirement with good behaviour and efficiently.
6. 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.
7. Heard.
8. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 20-06-2023
17:37:58
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 (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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 20-06-2023
17:37:58
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.â€Â
9. 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 1.7.2015 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.
10. The present petition is disposed off in view of the order passed by
co-ordinate bench in WP No.10727/2022.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 20-06-2023
17:37:58
