Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
Arjanbhai Motibhai Malivad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 17683 of 2022
Decided on : 28-09-2022
INCREMENT - Pension Revision - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - F.R., CSR and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules - Madras High Court decision in P. Ayyamperumal v. The Registrar and others - Delhi High Court decision in Gopal Singh - Union of India Vs. Laxmanbhai Kalabhai Chavda - Supreme Court dismissal of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No.22283 of 2018 - Rule 10 of the Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the benefit of one increment and revision of pension under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court considered the grievance of the petitioner who had been denied yearly increment for one full year of service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the government servant is entitled to receive the increment becoming payable on 1st July, even if they have retired on 30th June. The court relied on the decisions of the Madras High Court, Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court's dismissal of a Special Leave Petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether a government servant is entitled to receive the increment becoming payable on 1st July, even if they have retired on 30th June.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the entitlement to receive the increment crystallizes when the government servant completes the requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day. The court also emphasized that denial of the entitlement to receive the benefit when it is crystallized in law could be arbitrary if it is denied unless there is a valid reason.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to grant the benefit of one increment to the petitioners and accordingly revise their pension. The respondents were directed to comply with the direction within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment of the Court.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Soaham Joshi, learned AGP, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent – State.
2. Mr.H.B.Singh, learned advocate for the petitioners, places reliance on an order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 20181 of 2021 dated 20.06.2022, which read as under:
2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, all these petitions are taken up for final hearing today.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 v. 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 v. 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 v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others being Civil Writ Petition No.2503 of 2016 decided on 6.11.2020 and Safi Mohammad and others v. State of Rajasthan and others decided on 1.12.2021 and also of Rajasthan High Court in Ramji Lal Kulhari and others v. 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 increment on the basis of his good conduct for specified period. (Para 20)
“Payment of salary and increment to a central government servant is regulated by the provisions of F.R., CSR and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Pay defined in F.R. 9(21) means the amount drawn monthly by a central government servant and includes the increment.
A plain composite reading of applicable provisions leaves no ambiguity that annual increment is given to a government servant to enable him to discharge duties of the post and that pay and allowances are also attached to the post. Article 43 of the CSR defines progressive appointment to mean an appointment wherein the pay is progressive, subject to good behaviour of an officer. It connotes that pay rises, by periodical increments from a minimum to a maximum. The increment in case of progressive appointment is specified in Article 151 of the CSR to mean that increment accrues from the date following that on which it is earned. The scheme, taken cumulatively, clearly suggests that appointment of a central government servant is a progressive appointment and periodical increment in pay from a minimum to maximum is part of the pay structure. Article 151 of CSR contemplates that increment accrues from the day following which it is earned. This increment is not a matter of course but is dependent upon good conduct of
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 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 an employee to receive the increment on 1st July even though he had retired on 30th June, as supported by the interpretation of ....
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.
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....
Point of Law : powers of Government of India, of Local Governments and of subordinate authorities to grant a premature increment to an officer are subject to limits up to which each such authority ca....
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....
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
