Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shanti Choudhary vs State Of M.P. Through School ... on 23 June, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 23 rd OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 7108 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SHANTI CHOUDHARY W/O KAILASH CHANDRA
CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED GOVT. GIRLS MIDDLE SCHOOL, GAROTH
SANKUL, GOVT. GIRLS H.S.SCHOOL, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHOBHAG MAL PORWAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF
TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS MOTI BANGLE
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHALABH SHARMA, P.L./G.A.)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking release of
last increment which became due to him on 01.07.2017.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 23-06-2023
17:16:23
2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood
retired from service on 30.06.2017. The respondents have denied him the
increment which was payable w.e.f. 01.07.2017 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 and dismissed the writ petition.
This judgment was not brought to the knowledge of the Bench in the case of
Signature Not Verified
Rajendra Prasad Tiwari (supra). Hence, order passed in W.A. No.717/2016 is
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 23-06-2023
17:16:23
liable to be followed and this writ petition be dismissed.
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 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
Signature Not Verified
view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 23-06-2023
17:16:23
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 1.7.2017 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.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Bahar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 23-06-2023
17:16:23
