Pooran Singh Bhati vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 4377 Raj

(1 of 10) [CW-12439/2020]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12439/2020

Pooran Singh Bhati S/o Shri Madan Singh Bhati, Aged About 60 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o 269, Ashapurna Valley, Near New High Court Building, Bai Pas Road, Jhalamand, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Home Department , Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, General Of Police, Government Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur.

3. Commissioner Of Police, Police Commissionerate, Jodhpur.

4. Principal Secretary, Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

5. Director, Pension Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10357/2020 Veera Ram S/o Shri Ratna Ram, Aged About 60 Years, (Approx), By Caste Choudhary, R/o Plot No. 22, Shailesh Nagar, Jhalamand Circle, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Direictor General Of Police, Government Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur.

3. Commissioner Of Police, Police Commissionerate, Jodhpur.

4. Principal Secretary, Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

5. Director, Pension Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :      Mr. Rakesh Kumar Puri through VC
For Respondent(s)         :      Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG
                                 Mr. Manish Kumar, AAG





                                                  (2 of 10)                 [CW-12439/2020]


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order

21/03/2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

The petitioners have filed these writ petitions making the following

prayer:

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12439/2020(Pooran Singh Bhati Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

"It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may

kindly be accepted and allowed and by an appropriate order

or direction, Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised

Pay) Rules, 2008 and subsequently amended Rule 13 of

Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 may

kindly be declared to be arbitrary, illegal and

unconstitutional and accordingly the letter dated 17.12.2019

(Annexure-9) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the

respondents may kindly be directed to grant the annual

grade increment to the petitioner on completing full one

year service immediately preceding the date of his

retirement and accordingly revised his salary and pensionary

benefits and the arrears whereof be given to them with

interest @ 12% p.a., with all consequential benefits to

them."

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10357/2020 (Veera Ram

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

(3 of 10) [CW-12439/2020]

"It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may

kindly be accepted and allowed and by an appropriate order

or direction, Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised

Pay) Rules, 2008 and subsequently amended Rule 13 of

Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 may

kindly be declared to be arbitrary, illegal and

unconstitutional and accordingly the letter dated 10.05.2019

may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents

may kindly be directed to grant the annual grade increment

to the petitioner on completing full one year service

immediately preceding the date of his retirement and

accordingly revised his salary and pensionary benefits and

the arrears whereof be given to them with interest @ 12%

p.a., with all consequential benefits to them."

Controversy identical to the one involved in the instant writ

petition was examined and decided by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.6024/2021 (Safi Mohammad & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Anr.) in following terms:

This petition is filed by several retired employees of

the State of Rajasthan. They all have retired in different

years, however, the common factor being that their date

of retirement was 30th June of the respective year. They

have challenged Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services

(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter to be referred as

the "Rules of 2008") and Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil

Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter to be

referred to as the "Rules of 2017"). They have also prayed

for direction to grant notional annual increment for having

(4 of 10) [CW-12439/2020]

worked for one full year before the date of retirement and

to draw the pension accordingly.

Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that prior

to the promulgation of the Rules of 2008 in the State

service, annual increment of an employee was released on

the date of completion of a year in service. With

introduction of the Rules of 2008, the different dates of the

increments falling due for different employees was

consolidated on 1st July of the year concerned, as provided

in Rule 14 which reads as under:

"14. Date of next increment in the running pay band- There will be uniform date of annual increment, viz. 1st July of every year. Employees completing 6 months and above in the running pay band as on 1st of July will be eligible to be granted the increment. The first increment after fixation of pay on 01.09.2006 or thereafter as per option in the running pay band will be granted to the employees, who have completed 6 months and above as on 01.07.2007.

Provided that in the case of persons who had been drawing maximum of the existing pay scale for more than a year as on the 1st day of September, 2006, the next increment in the running pay band shall be allowed on the 1st day of September, 2006. Thereafter, the provision of Rule 14 would apply.

Note- In cases where two existing scales, one being a promotional scale for the other, are merged, and the junior Government servant, now drawing his pay at equal or lower stage in the lower scale of pay, happens to draw more pay in the running pay band than the pay of the Senior Government servant in the existing higher scale, the pay in the running pay band of the senior Government servant shall be stepped up to that of his junior from the same date and he shall draw next increment in accordance with Rule

14."

This pattern continued even under the Rules of 2017 as provided in Rule 13 which reads as under:

(5 of 10) [CW-12439/2020]

"13. Date of next increment in revised pay structure-

(1) There will be a uniform date of annual increment viz. 1st July of every year after fixation of pay under these rules. Employees completing six months and above in any Level as on 1st July will be eligible to be granted the increment.

(2)Every new recruit on completion of probation period successfully shall be allowed first annual increment on 1 st July, which immediately follows the date of completion of probation period."

Since all the petitioners retired on 30th June of the

respective years, they were not granted the increment

falling due on the following 1 st July. Their grievance is

that they having rendered Government service for one

full year, the benefit of the last increment has not been

given to them. They argue that the rule should be

interpreted in such a way that they get this last

increment. In the alternative, their contention is that the

rule should be held ultra-vires and should be struck

down. Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred

to certain decisions of Madras High Court and Delhi High

Court taking such a view.

....

We do not find any force in the submission of the

learned counsel for the petitioners that every employee who

retires on 30th June of a particular year, must receive the

increment which as per these rules falls due on 1 st July. The

grant of annual increment is part of pay structure which the

Government prescribes for its employees and is governed by

statutory rules. Annual increment is granted by way of

incentive in order to reward long service rendered by the

Government employee. It is different from the dearness

(6 of 10) [CW-12439/2020]

allowance which the Government declares from time to time

and meant to offset for the diminished value of purchasing

price of the rupee with increase in inflation. Such Increment

can claimed only in terms of the statutory rules.

We are conscious that the Madras High Court and Delhi

High Court have taken a different view. Heavy reliance was

placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a Division

Bench judgment of Madras High Court in the case of P.

Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registar and others (W.P. No.

15732 of 2017 decided on 15.09.2017). This judgment

proceeds on the earlier judgment of Court in the case of

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M. Balasubramaniam (CDJ

2012 MHC 6525) which was rendered by the Single Judge

and approved by the Division Bench. Likewise, the Division

Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh Vs.

Union of India and others (W.P.(C) 10509/2019

decided on 23.01.2020), has also relied upon and

accepted the decision in case of M. Balasubramaniam(supra)

Madras High Court. Yet another decision in the case of Arun

Chhibber Vs. Union of India and others (W.P.(C)

5539/2019 decided on 13.01.2020), the Division Bench

of Delhi High Court reiterated this proposition on the basis of

decision in the case of M. Balasubramaniam (supra).

We have perused decision of Madras High Court in

the case of M. Balasubramaniam (supra) which is the base

judgment, which the subsequent Division Benches of Madras

High Court and Delhi Court have followed. This was a case

which the petitioner, who was in State service, had retired

(7 of 10) [CW-12439/2020]

w.e.f. 31 March, 2003. He had claimed the benefit of

pension on the basis of increment which fell due on

01.04.2003, on the basis of the judgment of Supreme Court

in the case of S. Banerjee Vs. Union of India and others

(AIR 1990 SC 285). Upon his superannuation, he was re-

employed and continued in service up to 31 st March, 2003. It

was on that basis that the petitioner had claimed the benefit

of an additional annual increment falling due on 01.04.2003.

This was opposed by the Government on the ground that on

01.04.2003, he was not in Government service. In such

background, the High Court had allowed the petition and

directed that the representation of the petitioner for grant of

annual increment for the period from 01.04.2002 to

31.03.2003 shall be considered in light of the judgment of

the Supreme Court in the case of S. Banerjee (supra).

If we peruse the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of S. Banerjee (supra), the facts were that the

petitioner was allowed to retire voluntarily from service with

effect from the forenoon of 1 st January, 1986. He was not

given the benefit of revision of salary which was brought

into effect from 01.01.1986. The Government had argued

before the Supreme Court that in view of the proviso of Rule

5(2) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, the

petitioner will not be entitled to any salary for the day on

which he actually retired and therefore, his claim for

granting the benefit of revision of pay scales would not be

justified. The Supreme Court repelled this contention on the

ground that the employee retired with effect from the

(8 of 10) [CW-12439/2020]

forenoon of 01.01.1986 and not with effect from 31 st

December, 1985 and therefore the revision of pay scales

would be applicable to him.

In our view, there is a fine distinction in the judgment

of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Banerjee (supra) and

the facts of the present case. In the present case, all the

petitioners admittedly retired on 30 th June and not with

effect from 1st July. The decision of the Supreme Court

therefore will not aid the petitioners in the present case. We

are in respectful disagreement with the view of Madras High

Court in the case of N. Balasubramanian (supra) in which in

our opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court in case of S.

Banarjee (supra) has been applied though the facts were

different. Since all subsequent judgments noted above

merely refer to and rely upon the judgment in the case of M.

Balasubramaniam (supra), we cannot concur with such

views.

We notice that a Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh

High Court in the case of Hari Prakash (supra) has taken a

similar view. The earlier decisions of Madras High Court and

Delhi High Court have been noticed.

We are conscious that the SLP against the decision of

the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal

(supra) came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court

observing that "on the facts" the Court is not inclined to

interfere with the judgment. However, this expression

cannot be seen as approval of the judgment on merits. We

(9 of 10) [CW-12439/2020]

are therefore entitled to take an independent view, which we

have taken.

....

Before closing, we find nothing arbitrary or

discriminatory about the rules in question. The annual

increment is released with effect from a particular date. As a

consequence, it is natural that someone would fall on the

wrong side of such a date. That by itself would not render

the rule arbitrary. The direction for releasing an additional

increment in favour of retirees is also not free from practical

complications. None of the judgments cited by the learned

counsel for the petitioners refer to the date as on which such

increment would be released. For proper pay fixation and

calculation of the re-fixed pay after releasing the annual

increment, it is absolutely essential that the date as on

which such increment is released, be specified. If it is to be

released as on 30th June of the year of retirement, we do not

see how this can result into any benefit to the petitioners

since their pension would be drawn on the basis of last 10

months of salary and releasing the notional increment on

the last date of service would not augment the salary in any

manner. On the other hand, if the expectation of the

petitioners is that such annual increment may be released as

on 1st July of the last year of their working, this would lead

to two increments being released on the same date which is

wholly impermissible."

(10 of 10) [CW-12439/2020]

As the controversy involved in these writ petitions is exactly

the same, we are not persuaded to take a different view.

As a result, both the writ petitions are rejected as being devoid

of merit.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

117-Amit/Anshul/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)