IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of payment of one increment to employees who have retired on 30th June is no longer res integra and stands decided based on various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the observations made in those decisions. The court also emphasized that the decisions directing payment of arrears to the petitioners would have a better binding precedent.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rishabh Acharya for learned Advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya on behalf of the petitioners and learned Advocate Ms. Reeta Chandarana on behalf of the respondents.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Ms. Chandarana waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.

3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate for the petitioners, it would appear that both of the petitioners have retired on 30th June of various years and whereas they have been denied benefit of increment which fell due on the 1st July. It would appear that the respondents have relied upon Rule 39 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 to deny the benefit of one increment and consequential benefits to the petitioners whereas, it would be a submission on behalf of the petitioners that the issue is no more res integra more particularly since various learned Coordinate Benches of this Court including Hon’ble Division Benches of this Court having taken a view in favour of the persons similarly situated to the present petitioners.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners would also draw the attention of this Court to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 [SLP(C) No.9185/2020] in case of The Director (Admin. and HR) KPTCL and Ors. vs. C.P.Mundinamani and Ors., dated 11.04.2023 and would submit that a decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court as well as decisions of the other High Courts have been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision.

4.1. Learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners would submit that since the issue having been concluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same being binding on the respondents also, the request of the petitioners for direction to the respondents to pay benefit of one increment along with all consequential benefits may be granted.

5. Considering the submissions made on behalf of learned Advocate for the petitioners, while it would appear that there are decisions of learned Coordinate Benches taking a view in favour of the persons similarly situated to the petitioners and whereas, it would also appear that such view has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Benches and whereas, it would appear that the decision of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Gujarat vs. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara [Letters Patent Appeal No. 868 of 2021; Dt.27.04.2022] has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Director (Admin. and HR) KPTCL and Others (supra).

5.1. At this stage, this Court also feels it appropriate to state that Rule 39 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 being relied upon by the respondents, is almost pari materia to Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations which were in question before the Hon’ble Apex Court, based upon which, the official respondent i.e. the appellant before the Hon’ble Apex Court had denied the benefit of one increment to the employee. It would appear that the proviso to Rule 39 which is being relied upon by the official respondents reads as follows:-

“Provided that the increment shall be admissible from the 1st of the month, in which, it accrues.”

It would appear that Regulation 40(1) also speaks almost in the same language which reads as follows:-

“An increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned.”

In this regard, this Court seeks to rely and refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of The Director (Admin. and HR) KPTCL and Ors. (supra) at paragraph nos. 6.4, 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7. The same being relevant, are reproduced herein below for benefit:-

“6.4 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that the annual increment is in the form of incentive and to encourage an employee to perform well and therefore, once he is not in service, there is no question of grant of annual increment is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. In a given case, it may happen that the employee earns the increment three days before his