The main legal point established in the judgment is that government servants are entitled to annual increment becoming payable on the succeeding day, even after retirement, and denying this entitlement based on retirement date would be arbitrary and unreasonable.

ORDER :

1. 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 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 30th June of the respective calendar 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 and 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.”

2. The factual matrix in the present case is that the petitioners herein retired from the service on 30.6.2022, 30.6.2021, 30.6.2019, 30.6.2018, 30.6.2022, 30.6.2023, 30.6.2022, 30.6.2023, 30.6.2023, 30.6.2021, 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 the 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. Majmudar 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 Another, 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 St