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 rendering specified period of service with good conduct and efficiently in the last preceding year would be arbitrary and unreasonable.

ORDER :

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

“A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ pf mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents herein to grant one last increment to the petitioners which has become due and payable in the month of 1st July of particular year of superannuation as per their entitlement and consequentially, direct the respondent authorities to revise the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioners and make payment of arrears with interest at the rate of 8%;

B) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to consider last one increment of their services which falls due on 1st July though the petitioners retired on 30th June;

C) Any other appropriate reliefs deemed just, fit and proper may pleased be grated.”

2. The factual matrix in the present case is that the petitioners herein retired from the service on 01.06.2020, 01.06.2008, 30.06.2016, 01.06.2015, 01.06.2016, 30.06.2016 and 30.06.2015 respectively, 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 of the respective years of retirement in respect of petitioners. However, as aforesaid, as the petitioners had retired from service on 1st and 30th June of the respective years, they were not granted the said benefit of annual increment for the said period. Aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Application.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Krunal Modi 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 v. 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 increment becoming payable is only fortuitous circumstance. He submits that the said judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of preferring Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 26295 of 2022 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the Special Leave Petition since the order of the Division Bench was complied with by the State Government and the issue was kept upon as the issue was at large in other matters pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Ors. v. C. P. Mundinamani and Ors., being Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 by its judgment dated 11.04.2023, has upheld the view of the Division Bench of this Court in Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra). It has been held that denying a government servant the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned while rendering specified period of service with good conduct and efficiently in the last preceding year, would be arbitrary and unreasonable. It was held that the entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallizes when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day. It was further held that the word “accrue” should be understood liberally and would mean payable on the succeeding day. Any contrary view would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness and denying a government servant legitimate one annual increment though he is entitled to that for rendering the services over a ye