The court established that the state can limit arrears for increments to three years for belated claims, reinforcing the importance of timely action by employees.

ORDER :

1. Admit. Learned advocates waive service of notice of admission for and on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. At the outset, learned Additional Advocate General Ms. Luvkumar appearing for the appellant authority has pointed out the order passed by the Apex Court dated 22.03.2024 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6378 of 2024 and has submitted that after the said SLP was dismissed, the State has framed a policy dated 12.08.2024 through the Finance Department i.e. GR No. EJF-102023-41-CH regulating arrears of retired employees as per the settled legal proposition enunciated by the Apex Court in the various judgments. She has submitted that the State was constrained to frame such policy as there are various writ petitions, which have been filed belatedly by the employees claiming the benefit of one increment. She has submitted that as per the said policy, the arrears are restricted to the period of 3 years in those cases where the employees have assailed the non-grant of increments after filing the writ petition beyond the period of 3 years.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General has referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases, which are referred in the Government Resolution. The same are as under:

(i) State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 754

(ii) State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Bihar Pensions Samaj, (2006) 5 SCC 65

(iii) State of Tripura and Ors. Vs. Anjana Bhattacharjee and Ors. 2022 SCC Online SC 1071

4. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that looking to the number of writ petitions, which are filed before this Court and also directions issued therein, it became necessary for the State Government to frame the policy as the State Government is facing huge financial burden. It is also submitted that all the employees, who have approached this Court subsequently, by filing various writ petitions, were sitting on fence and hence, they cannot be conferred the arrears of one increment from the date of retirement, after they have approached this Court belatedly.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General has further pointed out the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph No. 13 of the impugned judgment and order. It is submitted that in fact, at the relevant time, there was no policy framed by the State Government regulating the arrears however, since the State has now framed the policy dated 12.08.2024, the observations made by the learned Single Judge that “........a policy which contemplates denial to employees of their legitimate dues probably may not stand the test of legal scrutiny.” will impede the State Government. It is submitted that the issue of restricting the arrears to 3 years from the date of filing of the writ petition, is not examined either by the learned Single Judges or Division Benches of this Court and hence, the same is required to be examined in light of the policy dated 12.08.2024. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may be allowed.

6. Learned advocate Ms.Kruti Shah appearing for the respondent-employee has submitted that the present employee cannot be denied the right of entitlement of the arrears when he retired, even if he has approached this Court by filing the writ petition belatedly. She has submitted that the Division Bench, in the similar issue, has rejected Letters Patent Appeal No. 792 of 2024 vide order dated 01.08.2024. She has further submitted that the action of the State Government in framing the policy would be discriminating in nature and there would be some other employees, who would have already been conferred the benefits, whereas the present respondent-employee, who was only armed with the similar orders, cannot be denied arrears from the actual date of his retirement. She has referred to the judgment dated 22.09.2020 passed in the Writ Application No. 645 of 2020 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Yogendra Singh Bhadauria & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) and has sub