Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, GITA GOPI, JJ.
Gujarat Rajya Nivrutt Karmachari Sakhavati Mahamandal - Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar and Others - Respondents
Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) No. 2819 of 2024, Misc. Civil Application Nos. 2820, 2821, 2822 of 2024, Special Civil Application Nos. 15158, 15160, 15173, 15196 of 2023
Decided On : 19-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 141 - Contempt proceedings - The Supreme Court clarified the applicability of its judgment regarding the grant of one increment to employees, stating that benefits should be conferred from the date of the judgment, with specific provisions for third parties and ongoing litigations. (Paras 6, 8, 12)
(B) Judicial discipline - An order refusing special leave to appeal does not attract the doctrine of merger and serves as a declaration of law binding on parties and authorities in subsequent proceedings. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The applicants sought contempt proceedings against state authorities for failing to confer a due increment to employees as per the Supreme Court's directions. The Supreme Court had previously ruled on this issue, leading to confusion regarding the implementation of the increment.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the state government must adhere to the Supreme Court's clarificatory directions regarding the increment and that the applicants chose to wait for further orders.
Issues: The main issues included the applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment to third parties and the timing of the increment's conferment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Supreme Court's order serves as a declaration of law and must be followed, while also recognizing the need to avoid inconsistencies in the implementation of the increment.
Result: Matters adjourned pending final disposal of related applications.
ORDER :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. At the outset learned advocate Mr. A.S. Asthavadi has pointed out the order dated 81.12.2024, passed by the Supreme Court in Review Petition (C) Diary No. 36418 of 2024 and also the order dated 06.09.2024 passed in Misc. Application (Diary No. 2400/2024) in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4722 of 2021, and has submitted that the issue involved in the present application is still pending, and the applicant would like to wait for the further orders passed in said application.
2. We may mention that the issue pertains to the grant of one increment to the employees of State and also who are serving under District Panchayats and other bodies, which are more than 40,000 in number, and the numerous contempt applications are filed by them.
3. We may give some background of the litigation.
4. The present applications are filed seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents. By various orders, the learned Single Judges while following the directions issued by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 11.04.2023 in case of Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and Ors. v. C.P. Mundinamani and Ors., (being Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023), has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to confer the benefit of one increment, which were to be due on 01.07.2020 and 01.07.2018.
5. The said judgment and order was carried further by the State by filing Letters Patent Appeal and since there was delay, a Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No.108 of 2024 in F/Letters Patent Appeal No.504 of 2024, which was rejected by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 11.01.2024. It is not in dispute that similar orders passed by this Court of the Division Benches were assailed before the Apex Court and the SLP were dismissed summarily.
6. As noticed by us, numerous matters were filed after the judgment was rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10308 of 2021 dated 11.08.2021. It is also not in dispute that in various High Courts of the country, such issue about grant of one increment accruing on 1st July to its employees and who had retired on 30th June, was raised and examined by different High Courts. Ultimately, the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of C.P. Mundinamani And Ors. (supra), dated 11.04.2023, disposed of the Special Leave Petition on identical issue.
7. Thereafter, the State Government had promulgated a policy for conferring the benefits of one increment to the thousands of employees working across various local bodies and various departments of State of Gujarat.
8. The said policy was thereafter, withdrawn in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 06.09.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Application Diary No.2400/2024 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.4722/2021. The Supreme Court vide order dated 06.09.2024 had issued clarificatory directions, clarifying the manner and method in which the aforesaid benefit of one increment is required to be extended. Such clarificatory directions are issued in case of C.P. Mundinamani And Ors.(supra). Such directions are as under:
“The issue raised in the present applications requires consideration, insofar as the date of applicability of the judgment dated 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023, titled “Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and Others”, to third parties is concerned.
We are informed that a large number of fresh writ petitions have been filed.
To prevent any further litigation and confusion, by of an interim order we direct that:
(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid.
(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking
AI
The Supreme Court's order on the grant of one increment to employees is binding and must be applied consistently, with specific provisions for ongoing litigations.
The Supreme Court clarified that the judgment regarding the grant of one increment to employees is effective from 01.05.2023, with specific conditions for those involved in ongoing litigation.
The Supreme Court's clarification on the grant of one increment is binding, and no contempt was found as the applicant received the increment as directed.
The Supreme Court's order on increment benefits binds lower courts, and refusal of special leave does not imply merger of orders.
The Supreme Court's directive on granting one increment to pensioners is binding, effective from 01.05.2023, with no retroactive payments, and excess payments made will not be recovered.
The Supreme Court's directives on pension increments for retired employees must be implemented by the State without modification, ensuring compliance within specified timelines.
The Supreme Court clarified that retired employees are entitled to one increment for pension calculations effective from May 1, 2023, with provisions for timely compliance by state authorities and no....
The Supreme Court clarified that retired employees are entitled to one increment in pension from 01.05.2023, with no recovery of excess payments already made.
The court condoned the delay in filing Letters Patent Appeals to ensure uniformity in the treatment of employees following the Supreme Court's clarification on pension increments.
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
