Madras High Court
Anbazhagan K.N vs Union Of India on 23 August, 2023
W.P.Nos.19059, 32009, 32011, 32014 & 32016 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.Nos.19059, 32009, 32011, 32014 & 32016 of 2019
1.Anbazhagan K.N. .. Petitioner in W.P.No.19059 of 2019
2.Arivazhagan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.32014 of 2019
3.Shri Chellan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.32011 of 2019
4.L.Manohar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.32009 of 2019
5.G.Rajendran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.32016 of 2019
vs.
1.Union of India, rep. by
The Senior Superintendent of Post,
Department of Postal,
Tambaram Division,
Tambaram, Chennai-600 045.
2.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench. .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.19059 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India calling for the records of the second respondent
pertaining to the order dated 27.03.2019 passed in O.A.No.370/2019 in
which served on 21.05.2019 and quash the same and also by directing the
first respondent to extend the benefits of the order dated 15.09.2017 passed
by this Court in W.P.No.15732 of 2017 to the petitioner, grant him annual
increment for the year 2013 and refix his pensionary benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.19059, 32009, 32011, 32014 & 32016 of 2019
Prayer in W.P.No.32014 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India calling for the records of the second respondent
pertaining to the order dated 26.08.2019 passed in O.A.No.192/2019 in
which served on 21.05.2019 and quash the same and also by directing the
first respondent to extend the benefits of the order dated 15.09.2017 passed
by this Court in W.P.No.15732 of 2017 to the petitioner, grant him annual
increment for the year 2013 and refix his pensionary benefits.
Prayer in W.P.No.32011 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India calling for the records of the second respondent
pertaining to the order dated 26.08.2019 passed in O.A.No.189/2019 in
which served on 21.05.2019 and quash the same and also by directing the
first respondent to extend the benefits of the order dated 15.09.2017 passed
by this Court in W.P.No.15732 of 2017 to the petitioner, grant him annual
increment for the year 2013 and refix his pensionary benefits.
Prayer in W.P.No.32009 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India calling for the records of the second respondent
pertaining to the order dated 26.08.2019 passed in O.A.No.188/2019 in
which served on 21.05.2019 and quash the same and also by directing the
first respondent to extend the benefits of the order dated 15.09.2017 passed
by this Court in W.P.No.15732 of 2017 to the petitioner, grant him annual
increment for the year 2013 and refix his pensionary benefits.
Prayer in W.P.No.32016 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India calling for the records of the second respondent
pertaining to the order dated 26.08.2019 passed in O.A.No.191/2019 in
which served on 21.05.2019 and quash the same and also by directing the
first respondent to extend the benefits of the order dated 15.09.2017 passed
by this Court in W.P.No.15732 of 2017 to the petitioner, grant him annual
increment for the year 2013 and refix his pensionary benefits.
For petitioners : Mr.V.Raghupathi
in all W.Ps.
For Respondents : Mr.Venkatasamy Babu
Standing Counsel for R1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.19059, 32009, 32011, 32014 & 32016 of 2019
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Justice D.Krishnakumar, J.)
The learned Standing counsel for the first respondent fairly submitted
before this Court that the issue involved in these writ petitions are squarely
covered by the earlier decision of this Court in T.Mani and Others v. Union
of India and Others [W.P.No.176 of 2019 dated 05.07.2023], wherein this
Court relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has passed the
following order:
"4.At this juncture, it is useful to rely upon the relevant
portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, which is extracted hereunder:
6.5 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that
as the increment has accrued on the next day on which it is earned and
therefore, even in a case where an employee has earned the increment one
day prior to his retirement but he is not in service the day on which the
increment is accrued is concerned, while considering the aforesaid issue,
the object and purpose of grant of annual increment is required to be
considered. A government servant is granted the annual increment on the
basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are
given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are
withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore,
the increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a
year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a government servant has
rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale,
he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned
the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with
good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual
increment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (one
year) with good conduct efficiently. Merely because, the government
servant has retired on the very next day, how can he be denied the annual
increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to for rendering the
service with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding one year. In the
case of Gopal Singh (supra) in paragraphs 20, 23 and 24, the Delhi High
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.19059, 32009, 32011, 32014 & 32016 of 2019
Court has observed and held as under: ~
(para 20)
?Payment of salary and increment to a central government servant is
regulated by the provisions of F.R., CSR and Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules. Pay defined in F.R. 9(21) means the amount drawn
monthly by a central government servant and includes the increment. A
plain composite reading of applicable provisions leaves no ambiguity that
annual increment is given to a government servant to enable him to
discharge duties of the post and that pay and allowances are also attached
to the post. Article 43 of the CSR defines progressive appointment to mean
an appointment wherein the pay is progressive, subject to good behaviour
of an officer. It connotes that pay rises, by periodical increments from a
minimum to a maximum. The increment in case of progressive appointment
is specified in Article 151 of the CSR to mean that increment accrues from
the date following that on which it is earned. The scheme, taken
cumulatively, clearly suggests that appointment of a central government
servant is a progressive appointment and periodical increment in pay from
a minimum to maximum is part of the pay structure. Article 151 of CSR
contemplates that increment accrues from the day following which it is
earned. This increment is not a matter of course but is dependent upon
good conduct of the central government servant. It is, therefore, apparent
that central government employee earns increment on the basis of his good
conduct for specified period i.e. a year in case of annual increment.
Increment in pay is thus an integral part of progressive appointment and
accrues from the day following which it is earned.?
(para 23)
?Annual increment though is attached to the post & becomes payable on a
day following which it is earned but the day on which increment accrues
or becomes payable is not conclusive or determinative. In the statutory
scheme governing progressive appointment increment becomes due for the
services rendered over a year by the government servant subject to his
good behaviour. The pay of a central government servant rises, by
periodical increments, from a minimum to the maximum in the prescribed
scale. 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.?
(para 24)
?In isolation of the purpose it serves the fixation of day succeeding the
date of entitlement has no intelligible differentia nor any object is to be
achieved by it. The central government servant retiring on 30th June has
already completed a year of service and the increment has been earned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.19059, 32009, 32011, 32014 & 32016 of 2019
provided his conduct was good. It would thus be wholly arbitrary if the
increment earned by the central government employee on the basis of his
good conduct for a year is denied only on the ground that he was not in
employment on the succeeding day when increment became payable.?"
"?In the case of a government servant retiring on 30th of June the next day
on which increment falls due/becomes payable looses significance and
must give way to the right of the government servant to receive increment
due to satisfactory services of a year so that the scheme is not construed in
a manner that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined in Article
14 of the Constitution of India. The scheme for payment of increment
would have to be read as whole and one part of Article 151 of CSR cannot
be read in isolation so as to frustrate the other part particularly when the
other part creates right in the central government servant to receive
increment. This would ensure that scheme of progressive appointment
remains intact and the rights earned by a government servant remains
protected and are not denied due to a fortuitous circumstance.?"
6.6 The Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra)
while dealing with the same issue has observed and held inparagraph 24
as under: ~
"?24. Law is settled that where entitlement to receive a benefit
crystallises in law its denial would be arbitrary unless it is for a valid
reason. The only reason for denying benefit of increment, culled out from
the scheme is that the central government servant is not holding the post
on the day when the increment becomes payable. This cannot be a valid
ground for denying increment since the day following the date on which
increment is earned only serves the purpose of ensuring completion of a
year?s service with good conduct and no other purpose can be culled out
for it. The concept of day following which the increment is earned has
otherwise no purpose to achieve. In isolation of the purpose it serves the
fixation of day succeeding the date of entitlement has no intelligible
differentia nor any object is to be achieved by it. The central government
servant retiring on 30th June has already completed a year of service and
the increment has been earned provided his conduct was good. It would
thus be wholly arbitrary if the increment earned by the central government
employee on the basis of his good conduct for a year is denied only on the
ground that he was not in employment on the succeeding day when
increment became payable. In the case of a government servant retiring on
30th of June the next day on which increment falls due/becomes payable
looses significance and must give way to the right of the government
servant to receive increment due to satisfactory services of a year so that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.19059, 32009, 32011, 32014 & 32016 of 2019
the scheme is not construed in a manner that if offends the spirit of
reasonableness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The
scheme for payment of increment would have to be read as whole and one
part of Article 151 of CSR cannot be read in isolation so as to frustrate the
other part particularly when the other part creates right in the central
government servant to receive increment. This would ensure that scheme of
progressive appointment remains intact and the rights earned by a
government servant remains protected and are not denied due to a
fortuitous circumstance.?"
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.19059, 32009, 32011, 32014 & 32016 of 2019
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.
Therefore, in the light of the the above decision of the
Hon-ble Apex Court, the writ petitioners are entitled for one
increment for the service rendered by them in the preceding one
year to the succeeding day, when increment became payable.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the
respondents are directed to grant one increment for the service
rendered by them in the preceding year and consequently,
revise and re-fix the retirement benefits including pension and
to pay the arrears of pension to the petitioners, within four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed."
2. The said fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners and in the light of the aforesaid decision, prays that the petitioners
are also entitled to similar relief.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.19059, 32009, 32011, 32014 & 32016 of 2019
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
AND
P.B.BALAJI, J.
Jvm
3. In the light of the aforesaid decision of this Court, these writ
petitions are allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal are set aside. The respondents are directed to grant
one increment for the service rendered by them in the preceding year and
consequently revise and refix the retirement benefits including pension and
to pay arrears of pension to the petitioners, within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
[D.K.K., J.] [P.B.B., J.]
23.08.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Jvm
To
The Senior Superintendent of Post,
Union of India,
Department of Postal,
Tambaram Division, Tambaram, Chennai-600 045.
W.P.Nos.19059, 32009, 32011, 32014
& 32016 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
