The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to the benefit of increment falling due on the 1st of July, even if they had retired on 30th June, based on the interpretation of Rule 39 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002, and supported by similar decisions by other High Courts.

ORDER :

1. Mr. Amar Mithani, learned advocate appears for respondents no. 3 and 4 in Special Civil Application No. 17464 of 2022. Registry to accept appearance of Mr. Amar Mithani, learned advocate for respondents no. 3 and 4 in Special Civil Application No. 17464 of 2022. 1.1 Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP appearing for respondent State and Mr. Mithani, learned advocate appearing for respondents no. 3 and 4 in Special Civil Application No. 17464 of 2022 waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents. Heard Mr. Bhuvnesh Gehlot, learned advocate appearing for Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP for the State and Mr. Amar Mithani, learned advocate for respondents no. 3 and 4 in Special Civil Application No. 17464 of 2022

2. These petitions are filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to refix the pensionary and all other retiral benefits to the petitioners after taking into consideration the benefits of increment for the year of service rendered by the petitioners prior to their retirement on 30th June of the respective calendar year along with all consequential benefits including arrears and interest.

3. Mr. Gehlot, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the case involved in the present petitions is akin to the one decided by the Division Bench of this court vide order dated 27.04.2022 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 868 of 2021 confirming the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in Special Civil Application No. 10308 of 2021. The order dated 27.04.2022 passed in the Letters Patent Appeal reads as under:

“Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi for the appellant- applicant, learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate Ms.Trusha Patel for the respondent No.2.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, is directed against order dated 11.8.2021 of learned Single Judge whereby the Special Civil Application filed by the petitioner- respondent No.1 herein came to be allowed. The respondents were directed to grant benefit of one increment to the petitioner and accordingly revise his pension.

2.1 The petitioner prayed in his petition to set aside communication dated 6.1.2021. By the said communication the petitioner was refused to benefit of notional increment falling due on 1.7.2020 on the ground that the petitioner had retired with effect from 30.6.2020. It was stated in the said order that since the petitioner ceased to remain in employment he could not be considered as employee from 1st July, with effect from having retired a day prior, he acquires the status of pensioner and consequentially would not be entitled to the increment. The said communication dated 1.6.2021 was addressed to the Registrar General of the respondent No.1 by the under Secretary of the Legal Department of the State Government.

3. The relevant facts to be noticed are that the petitioner joined his services under respondent No.2 as Chowpdar cum Driver on 19.2.1983. He was appointed as Driver with effect from 1.4.1987. As the date of birth of the petitioner was 10.6.1960, he retired on 30.6.2020, upon attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner had rendered one full year of service from 1.7.2019 to 30.6.2020 in the said last year. It is his case that he was entitled to get benefit of annual increment for the said period of service. The increment for the said period of service, it was stated, falls due on 1.7.2

3.1 The petitioner made representation dated 31.7.2020 to respondent No.1 State requesting to release the increment, alongwith representation also produced by the petitioner were the instances where increment was granted to the similarly situated employees retiring on 30th June. It is the averment of the petitioner that pursuant to the said representation, respondent No.2 made proposal to respondent No.1, however at the end of correspondence th