Madras High Court
D.Selvaraju vs Pavithran (O.P.(Cat) No. 111/202 on 8 August, 2023
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
D.Selvaraju .. Petitioner
v.
1. Union of India
rep.by the Chief Postmaster General
Tamil Nadu Circle
Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
2. The Postmaster General
Western Region (TN)
Coimbatore 641 002
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Salem East Division
Salem 636 001
4. The Central Administrative Tribunal
Madras Bench rep.by its Registrar
Chennai 600 104 .. Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling the
records of 4th respondent pertaining to its order which is made in
OA/310/00205/2019 dated 14.03.2019 in so far as the petitioner is
concerned and quash the same, consequent to direct the respondents 1 to 3
to grant one increment for the service rendered by the petitioner for the
period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 and further direct to revise and re-fix
the retirement service benefits including pension of the petitioner and to pay
the arrears of pension to the petitioner.
For Petitioner :: Mr.R.Malaichamy
For Respondents :: Mr.N.Ramesh
Senior Panel Counsel for R1 to R3
R4-Tribunal
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.)
The petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in OA/310/00205/2019 dated
14.03.2019 in so far as the petitioner is concerned, with a consequential
direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to grant one increment for the service
rendered by the petitioner for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 and
also to revise and re-fix the retirement service benefits including pension
and arrears of pension to the petitioner.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
2. The petitioner, after serving as Lower Selection Grade Postal
Assistant at Attur Head Post Office, retired from service on 30.06.2018 on
attaining the age of superannuation. When the petitioner made
representations dated 02.11.2018 & 20.10.2018 to the respondents 2 & 3 to
grant one increment for the service rendered in the preceding year of his
retirement from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 and also to re-fix his pension
accordingly, the said request came to be rejected by the orders dated
16.11.2018 and 25.10.2018 respectively. The said orders were
unsuccessfully challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench, giving rise to the present writ petition.
3. The issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023
dated 11.04.2023 (The Director (Admn.& HR), KPTCL and others v.
C.P.Mundinamani and others), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
as follows:-
“6.5. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the
appellants that as the increment has accrued on the next
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
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 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
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 loses 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 in paragraph 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
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 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
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.”
4. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra,
we have also, by order dated 05.07.2023, allowed a similar Writ Petition
No.176 of 2019 filed by T.Mani and others by directing the respondents
therein to grant one increment for the service rendered by them in the
preceding year and also to grant them the revised pensionary benefits along
with arrears of pension.
5. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents 1
to 3 also has not controverted the above cited decision rendered by this
Court.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
6. In the light of the above, even though the petitioner in this case
attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018, he is entitled to the grant
of one increment for the service rendered by him in the preceding year
before his retirement i.e., for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 with
the consequential retirement benefits i.e., re-fixation of his pension and also
for payment of arrears of pension. In fine, the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench as well as the orders passed by the
respondents 2 & 3 are set aside and the writ petition stands allowed by
directing the respondents 1 to 3 to grant one increment for the service
rendered by the petitioner in the preceding year of his retirement and
consequently pay the revised pension along with the arrears to the
petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(D.K.K.,J.) (P.B.B,J.)
Index : yes/no 08.08.2023
Neutral citation : yes/no
ss
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
To
1. The Chief Postmaster General
Tamil Nadu Circle
Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
2. The Postmaster General
Western Region (TN)
Coimbatore 641 002
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Salem East Division
Salem 636 001
4. The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Chennai 600 104
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.
AND
P.B.BALAJI,J.
ss
W.P.No.16030 of 2019
08.08.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
