Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hanuman Lal Purohit vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 October, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15168/2021
Hanuman Lal Purohit S/o Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 62 Years,
Village Balara, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Agriculture, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Agriculture Commissionerate, Rajasthan,
Jaipur, District Jaipur.
3. Joint Director Agriculture (Administration), Agriculture
Commissionerate Rajathan, Jaipur, District Jaipur.
4. Joint Director Agriculture (Extension), Agriculture
Commissionerate Rajasthan, Jaipur, District Jaipur.
5. Joint Director, Department Of Pension, Jodhpur, District
Jodhpur.
6. Deputy Director Agriculture (Extension), Jila Parishad,
Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.
7. Deputy Treasury Officer, Tresury, Department, Sojat,
District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Panwar, Addl.G.C.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
28/10/2021
1. In the wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases,
the Court is functioning virtually and abundant caution is being
maintained for the safety of all concerned.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the controversy in question is squarely covered by
the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in the matter of
(Downloaded on 28/10/2021 at 09:41:33 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-15168/2021]
P. Ayyamperumal Versus Registrar, CAT & Ors.: WP
No.15732/2017, decided on 15.09.2017. It is further submitted
that SLP against the judgment aforesaid has also been dismissed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 23.07.2018. The operative portion
of the judgment is quoted as under:
"4.Heard the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing
for the respondents 2 to 4 on the submissions made
by the petitioner and perused the materials available
on record.
5.The petitioner retired as Additional Director
General, Chennai on 30.06.2013 on attaining the age
of superannuation. After the Sixth Pay Commission,
the Central Government fixed 1st July as the date of
increment for all employees by amending Rule 10 of
the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
In view of the said amendment, the petitioner was
denied the last increment, though he completed a full
one year in service, ie., from 01.07.2012 to
30.06.2013. Hence, the petitioner filed the original
application in O.A.No.310/00917/2015 before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, and
the same was rejected on the ground that an
incumbent is only entitled to increment on 1st July if
he continued in service on that day.
6.In the case on hand, the petitioner got retired on
30.06.2013. As per the Central Civil Services (Revised
Pay) Rules, 2008, the increment has to be given only
on 01.07.2013, but he had been superannuated on
30.06.2013 itself. The judgment referred to by the
petitioner in State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary
to Government, Finance Department and others v.
M.Balasubramaniam, reported in CDJ 2012 MHC
6525, was passed under similar circumstances on
20.09.2012, wherein this Court confirmed the order
(Downloaded on 28/10/2021 at 09:41:33 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-15168/2021]
passed in W.P.No.8440 of 2011 allowing the writ
petition filed by the employee, by observing that the
employee had completed one full year of service from
01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003, which entitled him to the
benefit of increment which accrued to him during that
period.
7.The petitioner herein had completed one full year
service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due
on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service.
In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally
he has to be treated as having completed one full
year of service, though the date of increment falls on
the next day of his retirement. Applying the said
judgment to the present case, the writ petition is
allowed and the impugned order passed by the first
respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed.
The petitioner shall be given one notional increment
for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he
has completed one full year of service, though his
increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of
pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No
costs."
3. In view of the limited prayer addressed; the writ
petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to
decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of 60
days from today strictly in accordance with law. The
aforementioned precedent law shall be kept into consideration.
4. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
135-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
