Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pritam Singh Takker vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 8 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 26654 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
PRITAM SINGH TAKKER S/O SHRI NIHAL SINGH JI,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RET. LECTURER
01, RAMLILA MAIDAN MAHIDPUR DISTT. UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(NONE FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER EDUCATION AND PUBLIC
I N S TR UCTI ON S GAUTAM NAGAR BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JOINT DIRECTOR KOSH LEKHA AVM PENSION
DIVISION UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER PENSION OFFICE
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KUSHAL GOYAL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 11/8/2023
6:55:22 PM
Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the respondents to grant him annual increment fell due on 01.07.2006.
02. It has been submitted that the petitioner stood retired from service on
30.06.2006. The respondents have denied him the increment which was payable
w.e.f. 01.07.2006 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 03.12.2019) whereby the
petition was allowed by directing the respondents/State to extend benefit of
increment fell due on 01.07.2015 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 06.03.2020 the same has been dismissed.
03. 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 11.04.2023) 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.
04. 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 10.07.2017 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
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 11/8/2023
6:55:22 PM
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.
05. Learned Deputy Advocate General 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 (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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 11/8/2023
6:55:22 PM
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."
06. In view of the above, this petition is hereby allowed. The respondents
are directed to grant the benefit of one annual increment which fell due on
01.07.2006 to the petitioner and also to revise his retiral dues and be paid to
him. Since there is delay on part of the petitioner to claim the benefit of annual
increment dated 01.07.2006, hence, he shall not be entitled for arrears of
pension as well as interest thereon. Let the whole exercise be completed within
60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. After grant of
annual increment, PPO be issued. Let the whole exercise be completed within
60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Ravi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 11/8/2023
6:55:22 PM
