Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shrihari Bhawsar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 October, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
W.P. No.27034/2023
IN THE HIGH COURTOF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 19th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 27034 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHRIHARI BHAWSAR S/O LATE SHRI BABULAL BHAWSAR, AGED
ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. RURAL AGRICULTURE
EXTENSION OFFICER, INDORE 37, SLICE-3, SECTOR-E, SCHEME NO.
78, ARANYA NAGAR, VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI RAVINDRA BHAWSAR WITH SHRI SIDDHARTH SINGH,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
FARMER WELFARE AND AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT
1.
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN MANTRALAYA, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VALLABH
2.
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE FARMER WELFARE AND
AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS 2ND FLOOR, C WING,
3.
VINDHYACHAL BHAVAN, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
JOINT DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE FARMER WELFARE AND
4. AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT COLLECTORATE CAMPUS MOTI
TABELA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER SATELLITE BHAWAN
5. COLLECTORATE CAMPUS MOTI TABELA INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI KRATIK MANDLOI, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE.)
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed
- : 2 :-
W.P. No.27034/2023
the following:
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking release of
last increment which became due to them on 1.7.2016.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
stood retired from service on 30.6.2016. The respondents have denied
him the increment which was payable w.e.f. 1.7.2016 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 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
- : 3 :-
W.P. No.27034/2023
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 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
- : 4 :-
W.P. No.27034/2023
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 is hereby allowed. The
respondents are directed to grant the benefit of one annual increment
which fell due on 1.7.2016 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 1.7.2016, 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.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
Alok/-
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2023.10.20 14:04:38 +05'30'
