Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 23974
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J
PATEL JAGJIVANBHAI BABABHAI – Appellant
Versus
UNJHA NAGARPALIKA – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11188 of 2023
An employee is entitled to an increment earned for the preceding year of service upon retirement, regardless of the timing of retirement, and denial of arrears without valid policy is arbitrary.
Headnote:(A) Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 - Rule 39 - Increment entitlement upon retirement - The petitioner, having retired on 30th June 2021, was denied an increment due on 1st July, relying on Rule 39. The court found that the issue is settled law, affirming that an employee is entitled to an increment earned for the preceding year of service, regardless of retirement timing. The court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023, which supports the entitlement to increments based on service rendered. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6, 15)
(B) Arrears - The court addressed the issue of whether the petitioner is entitled to arrears for the increment. It concluded that the absence of a clear policy denying arrears and the precedent set by previous decisions necessitate the payment of arrears. (Paras 10, 14)
(C) Policy Decisions - The court emphasized that the denial of increments based on retirement timing is arbitrary and unreasonable, aligning with the principles of good conduct and service. (Paras 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 14.1)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner retired on 30th June 2021 and was denied an increment due on 1st July, leading to the present writ petition. The court noted that similar cases had been resolved in favor of employees in the past.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the State to grant the petitioner the increment and revise pension and benefits, including arrears, within eight weeks.
Issues: The main issues were the entitlement to an increment upon retirement and the right to receive arrears.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an employee is entitled to an increment earned for the preceding year of service, and the timing of retirement should not affect this right.
Result: Petition allowed; the State is directed to pay the increment and arrears.
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Shivam Dave for learned advocate Mr.Jaimin Dave on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Abhijit Rathod on behalf of the respondent no.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Nikunj Kanara on behalf of the respondent – State.
2. Registry has moved a note inter alia informing this Court that while the status of the present writ petition shows as disposed of on 25.10.2023, no order has been uploaded as regard the same.
2.1. This Court has looked into the issue and whereas, it appears that a total of 42 writ petitions of the same nature had been disposed of by this Court on 25.10.2023 and whereas, the present petition is part of the said group and it would appear that inadvertently, the order which is passed in the other group of writ petitions, has not been transcribed as far as the present petition is concerned.
2.2. Considering such a position, since it appears that the orders have already been passed in cognate petitions, the same order also requires to be passed in the present petition also. Thus the following order:-
3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate for the petitioner, it would appear that the petitioner has retired on 30th June 2021 and whereas he has been denied benefit of increment which fell due on the 1st July. It would appear that the State 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 petitioner whereas, it would be a submission on behalf of the petitioner 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 petitioner.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner 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 petitioner would submit that since the issue having been concluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same being binding on the State of Gujarat also, the request of the petitioner for direction to the State 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 petitioner, while it would appear that there are decisions of learned Coordinate Benches taking a view in favour of the persons similarly situated to the petitioner 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 State 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 languag
