Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 January, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15579/2022
Om Prakash S/o Shri Ganeshram Sharma, Aged About 62 Years,
Resident Of Devi Marg K-78, Gayatri Nagar, Chandna Bhakar,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Department Of Agriculture,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Commissioner, Agricultural, Commissionerate, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Commissioner, Horticultural, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Joint Director, Agricultural, (Administration)
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. Joint Director, Department Of Pension, Jodhpur.
6. The Deputy Director, (Horticultural), Jalore.
7. Assistant Director, (Horticultural), Sirohi.
8. Treasurer Officer Rural, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
12/01/2023
1. 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 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
(2 of 3) [CW-15579/2022]
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 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
(3 of 3) [CW-15579/2022]
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."
2. 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.
3. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
125-KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
