Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 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 28 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 4871 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ARUN S/O SUKHRAM, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED ASSISTANT TEACHER GOVT.
MIDDLE SCHOOL SHRAMIK COLONY RAU DISTT.
INDORE R/O 55, KRISHNA NAGAR RAJENDRA NAGAR
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANAND AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER COLLECTORATE
CAMPUS INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
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 30.06.2010.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood
retired from service on 30.06.2010. The respondents have denied him the
increment which was payable w.e.f. 01.07.2010 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
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.
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 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 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 01.07.2010 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
ns
