Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
ARVINDBHAI JINABHAI RANA – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 7302 of 2022
Decided On : 27-09-2022
INCREMENT - PENSION BENEFITS - F.R. CSR, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - 1, 5, 20, 23, 24, 151 - The court discussed the entitlement of government servants to receive annual increments, even after retirement, based on their good conduct for a specified period. It referred to various decisions of different High Courts and the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the denial of increment after retirement could be arbitrary and against the spirit of reasonableness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the government servant is entitled to the increment becoming payable on 1st July, even though they have retired on 30th June, and directed the respondents to grant the benefit of one increment and revise the pension of the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the benefit of one increment and revision of their pension and retirement benefits, claiming that they were denied yearly increments for the period before their retirement on 30th June.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the petitioners, holding that they were entitled to the increment becoming payable on 1st July, even after their retirement on 30th June, based on their good conduct for a specified period.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of government servants to receive annual increments after retirement and the revision of their pension and retirement benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of F.R. CSR, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the entitlement of government servants to receive increments based on their good conduct, even after retirement.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to grant the benefit of one increment to the petitioners and revise their pension and retirement benefits within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.
3. Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on an order passed in similar matter by this Court namely; Special Civil Application No. 19793 of 2019 dated 19.09.2022. She further requested this Court to pass a similar order in this matter too. The order dated 19.09.2022 reads as under:
(2) Heard Mr. Rushabh Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioners as well as Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP for the respondents.
(3) Shortly stated the grievance of the petitioners is that they become eligible for increments though having retired on 30th June of each year.
(4) Reliance is placed on a decision dated 28.07.2022 of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 14687 of 2021 which reads as under.
4. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. G.R. Thacker learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondent. Learned AGPs waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents-State in the respective petitions.
5. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.
6. The issue raised in these petitions is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 20181 of 2021 and allied matters. The said judgment reads as under:
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Respective learned Assistant Government Pleaders waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State in all these petitions.
(a) With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, all these petitions are taken up for final hearing today.
(b) In all these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioners is to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of one increment and further to direct the respondents to revise the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioners.
(c) For the benefit of this common oral judgment, the facts of SCA No. 20181 of 2021 is considered.
4.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been denied yearly increment for one full year of service rendered by the petitioner for the period from 1.7.2015 to 30.6.2016.
(d) The issue of granting increment as prayed for by the present petitioners was a subject-matter of challenge before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court on 27.4.2022 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 868 of 2021 in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Takhatsinh Udesinh Sonagara noticing the facts of the respondent therein, who too prayed for increment for one full year of service and revision of pension accordingly, considering the decision of the Madrash High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal vs. The Registrar and Others being Writ Petition No. 15732 of 2017 decided on 15.9.2017 as well as the decisions of the Himachal Pradesh High Court as well as Rajasthan High Court in the cases of Hari Prakash and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others being Civil Writ Petition No. 2503 of 2016 decided on 6.11.2020 and Safi Mohammad and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others decided on 1.12.2021 and also of Rajasthan High Court in Ramji Lal Kulhari and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others being Civil Writ Petition No. 85 of 2020 and group of petitions decided on 10.1.2022 respectively held as under:
“5. The Delhi High Court in Gopal Singh (supra) taking same view as that of Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal (supra) explained that the entitlement of government servant to receive the increment, though may not be a matter of course, but is dependent upon good conduct of the central government servant and that he earns inc
Government servants are entitled to receive annual increments even after retirement, based on their good conduct for a specified period, as per the provisions of F.R. CSR, Central Civil Services (Pen....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a government servant is entitled to receive the increment becoming payable on 1st July, even if they have retired on 30th June, based on the p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an employee to receive the increment on 1st July even though he had retired on 30th June, as supported by the interpretation of ....
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 interp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a government servant to receive an increment becoming payable on 1st July even after retirement, as interpreted in various judgm....
Government servants are entitled to increments becoming payable on 1st July even after retirement, and denying a government servant the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned while r....
The entitlement to the benefit of one increment even after retirement, based on the interpretation of Rule 39 and the purpose of granting annual increment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
