The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a government servant to annual increment after retirement, emphasizing that denying the benefit earned through good conduct and efficient service would be arbitrary and unreasonable.

ORDER :

1. Learned advocate Mr. Shivam Majmudar appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr. N. K. Majmudar for the petitioners has submitted a draft amendment seeking to add the District Development Officer, Sabarkantha as respondent No.3. The draft amendment is allowed and the same be carried out forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Archana Acharya accepts notice on behalf of the newly added respondent No.3 and she is permitted to file her Vakalatnama.

2. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs:-

“A. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit this petition;

B. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and quash and set aside the action of the respondent authorities of not releasing the periodical / yearly increment preceding for discharge of duties by the petitioners for a period preceding the one year preceding the 1st week of July of respective calendar year in which the petitioners attended the age of superannuation and therefore the said action of the respondent authorities for not releasing the last yearly/ periodical increment to the petitioners though the petitioners have attended the age of superannuation on 30% June of the respective calendar year and became eligible and entitle to get yearly increment. the aforesaid action for not releasing the yearly increment is arbitrary and illegal;

C. Be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pass appropriate order for making payment/for releasing the periodical yearly increment/increments which has become due and payable to the petitioners as the basis of discharge of duties from the 1st week July of respective calendar year in which the petitioners attended the age of superannuation and the Hon’ble Court may issue further direction to the respondent authorities or may kindly be directed to recalculate “Last Pay’ drawn by the petitioners after addition of yearly/ periodical increment in the “Salary & Wages” of the petitioners and the Hon'ble Court May kindly direct the respondent authorities to recalculate/revise the pension/gratuity/leave encashment and other consequential benefits after addition of the aforesaid increment in the “Last pay drawn” by the petitioners and the difference of salary may kindly be ordered to be paid with 12% interest from the respective date of superannuation of the petitioners;

D. by way of interim order be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take decision to release the Last earned yearly increment to the petitioners;

E. Pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice.”

3. The factual matrix in the present case is that the petitioners retired from the service on 30th June on attaining the age of superannuation. It is the case of the petitioners that they have rendered one full year of service before their retirement and therefore, they were entitled to get the benefit of annual increment for the said period of service. That, as per the policy of Government, the said increments fall due on 1st July in respect of the petitioners. However, as the petitioners had retired from service on 30th June, they were not granted the said benefit of annual increment for the said period. The learned advocate for the petitioners has given the service details of the petitioners as per Annexure-A in tabular form. Aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Application.

4. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the issue with respect to grant of increment after retirement has now been settled in the decisions by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara and anr., being Letters Patent Appeal No.868 of 2021 decided on 27.04.2022, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the government servant is entitled to increment becoming payable on 1st July and the retirement of the government servant on the day prior to the in