Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayshree Puranik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2539 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
JAYSHREE PURANIK W/O LAXMIKANT PURANIK, AGED
ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. ASST. TEACHER
GOVT GIRLS MIDDLE SCHOOL SANKUL RADHABAI
MADHYAMIK VIDHYALAYA, DEWAS, R/O 602-D BLOCK
BICHOLI MARDANA SHRIJI HEIGHTS INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANAND AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION,
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DISTRICT
DEWAS, TEHSIL SQUARE NEAR LAL GATE DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DISTRICT DEWAS,
TEHSIL SQUARE, NEAR LAL GATE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHREY RAJ SAXENA - ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking release of last
increment which became due to him on 30.06.2018.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood
retired from service on 30.06.2018. The respondents have denied him the
increment which was payable w.e.f. 01.07.2018 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 03.12.2019) 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 06.03.2020 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 11.04.2023) 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.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State, submits that
i n 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
Signature Notwrit petition. This judgment was not brought to the knowledge of the Bench in
Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
the case of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari (supra). Hence, order passed in W.A.
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 2/2/2024
6:24:12 PM
No.717/2016 is liable to be followed and this writ petition be dismissed.
5. Heard.
6. Learned Government 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 herein above, 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
Signing time: 2/2/2024 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
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE 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."
7. 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 01.07.2018 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.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
SS/-
