Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Aniruddha P. Mayee, J.
Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti Karmachari Pensioners Mandal – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 19969 of 2023
Decided On : 22-01-2024
Increment - Retirement Benefits - State of Gujarat v. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara and Anr., Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Ors. v. C. P. Mundinamani and Ors., State of Gujarat v. Prahladbhai Haribhai Patel and Ors. - [Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations, Article 14 of the Constitution of India] - The court discussed the entitlement of government servants to annual increment after retirement, emphasizing that the increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding year, and should be payable on the succeeding day. The court rejected the view that the increment is a form of incentive and held that denying a government servant the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned would be arbitrary and unreasonable. The court also highlighted that any interpretation leading to arbitrariness and unreasonableness should be avoided, and the entitlement to receive increment crystallizes when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct.
Fact of the Case:
Members of the petitioner Mandal retired from service on various dates and sought one increment as per their entitlement, which was denied due to retiring a day before the increment became payable. The issue was settled in previous court decisions and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the government servants are entitled to one increment after retirement, as the increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding year, and should be payable on the succeeding day.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of government servants to annual increment after retirement, based on the interpretation of Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the entitlement to receive increment crystallizes when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct, and any interpretation leading to arbitrariness and unreasonableness should be avoided.
Final Decision: The Special Civil Application was allowed for certain petitioners, directing the revision of their pension and retirement benefits, and dismissed for others who retired after or before the specified dates.
ORDER :
1. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs:-
(C) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”.
2. The factual matrix in the present case is that members of the petitioner Mandal herein retired from the service on 30.06.2014, 30.06.2012, 30.06.2022, 30.06.2012, 30.06.2010, 30.06.2017, 30.06.2009, 30.06.2006, 30.06.2019, 30.06.2006, 30.06.2011, 30.06.2021, 30.06.2018, 30.06.2018, 30.06.2015, 30.06.2018, 30.06.2016, 30.06.2014, 30.06.2017, 30.06.2014, 30.06.2019, 30.06.2008, 30.06.2017, 30.06.2006, 31.10.2014, 31.10.2014, 30.06.2012, 30.06.2015, 30.06.2010, 30.06.2018, 30.06.2018, 30.06.2012, 30.06.2013, 30.06.2015, 30.06.2016, 30.06.2018, 30.06.2013, 30.06.2013, 30.06.2016, 30.06.2017, 30.06.2008, 30.06.2009, 31.10.2012, 31.02.2019, 30.06.2015, 30.06.2015, 30.10.2013, 31.03.2012, 20.08.2010, 30.06.2012, 23.10.2010, 30.06.2015, 30.06.2014, 30.06.2006, 30.06.2008, 30.06.2016, 30.06.2017, 30.06.2018, 30.06.2018, 30.06.2012, 31.10.2016, 31.10.2011, 30.06.2011, 25.06.2016, 01.06.2012, 30.06.2007, 30.06.2017, 30.06.2015, 30.06.2020, 30.06.2011, 30.06.2008, 30.06.2016, 30.06.2008, 31.10.2018, 31.10.2016, 31.10.2017, 30.06.2020, 30.06.2019, 30.06.2020, 30.06.2015, 30.06.2014, 31.10.2009, 30.06.2006, 31.10.2010, 30.06.2015, 30.06.2010, 30.11.2007, 30.06.2010, 30.06.2006, 30.06.2011, 30.06.2012, 30.06.2008, 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. Asthavadi 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
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to receive increment crystallizes when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct, and any....
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 annual increments after retirement for the services rendered over a year with good behavior and efficiency, as interpreted by the Division Bench of the Court and t....
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 entitleme....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to receive increment crystallizes when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and beco....
The entitlement to receive increment crystallizes when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day, and denying a governme....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that government servants are entitled to annual increment after retirement, as the increment becomes payable on the succeeding day and denying it w....
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 ....
Employees entitled to notional increment earned before retirement despite accruing post-retirement, based on satisfactory prior service.
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
