Devendra Kumar Sinha, son of late Madho Prasad Singh, resident of Shiv Bhawan Lane v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Project Building, P.O. & P.S
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 3755 of 2024 ---------- Devendra Kumar Sinha, son of late Madho Prasad Singh, resident of Shiv Bhawan Lane, Tagore Hill Road, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, Dist. Ranchi. Petitioner ………. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi. ………. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioner ----------- : For the Respondents :
Legal Reasoning
Er. Yash Harsh Vardhan, Advocate Mr. Rishi Chandan, Advocate Mr. O.P. Tiwari, GP-III Mr. A.K. Dubey, AC to GP-III 03/ 06.08.2024 Heard the parties. ---------- 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the office order No. 781/A dated 16.03.2024, by which the petitioner has been deprived of notional increment arising out of his services rendered to the government before the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.12.2022. 3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer by Bihar Public Service Commission vide letter No. 2323 dated 20.06.1987 in the Water Resources Department. After bifurcation of the State, petitioner was allocated Jharkhand cadre in the year 2004 and since then he worked under Jharkhand Government and after rendering 35 years of unblemished service, petitioner superannuated from the post of Superintending Engineer on 31.12.2022. It is the case of petitioner that after superannuation he was deprived from the notional increment which he had earned for his services in the preceding year for working efficiently and with good behavior before the date of 1 superannuation. Though petitioner represented several times before the respondents for granting notional increment but the respondents have rejected his claim. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that issues involved in this writ petition is no more res-integra and the same has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Others, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 401. Learned counsel submits that in view of law laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court, there is no option for the government but to notionally grant increment to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that he is not disputing the legal proposition as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court but in absence of any counter-affidavit he is not in a position to state as to what was the status of the petitioner on the date of retirement. 6. From the arguments advanced by the parties across the bar, this Court is of the view that admittedly petitioner superannuated from the services on 31.12.2022. 7. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Others, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 401, in which it was held that an annual increment should be granted to the employee who has earned it on the last day of their service, provided they have rendered their services efficiently and with good behavior in the year preceding their retirement date. The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under: 18. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that as the increment has accrued on the next day on which it is earned and therefore, even in a case where an employee has earned the increment one day prior to his retirement but he is not in service the day on which the increment is accrued is concerned, while considering the aforesaid issue, the object and purpose of 2 grant of annual increment is required to be considered. A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a linked with efficiency. measure of punishment or Therefore, the increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (one year) with good conduct efficiently. Merely because, the government servant has retired on the very next day, how can he be denied the annual increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to for rendering the service with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding in one year. paragraphs 20, 23 and 24, the Delhi High Court has observed and held as under:— the case of Gopal Singh (supra) In (Para 20) “Payment of salary and increment to a central government servant is regulated by the provisions of F.R., CSR and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Pay defined in F.R. 9(21) means the amount drawn monthly by a central government servant and includes the increment. A plain composite reading of applicable provisions leaves no ambiguity that annual increment is given to a government servant to enable him to discharge duties of the post and that pay and allowances are also attached to the post. Article 43 of the CSR defines progressive appointment to mean an appointment wherein the pay is progressive, subject to good behaviour of an officer. It connotes that pay rises, by periodical increments from a minimum to a maximum. The in case of progressive appointment is specified in Article 151 of the CSR to mean that increment accrues from the date following that on which it is earned. The scheme, taken cumulatively, clearly suggests that appointment of a central government servant is a progressive appointment and periodical increment in pay from a minimum to maximum is part of the pay structure. Article 151 of CSR contemplates that increment increment 3 accrues from the day following which it is earned. This increment is not a matter of course but is dependent upon good conduct of the central government servant. It is, therefore, apparent that central government employee earns increment on the basis of his good conduct for specified period i.e. a year in case of annual increment. Increment in pay is thus an integral part of progressive appointment and accrues from the day following which it is earned.” (para 23) “Annual increment though is attached to the post & becomes payable on a day following which it is earned but the day on which increment accrues or becomes payable is not conclusive or determinative. In the statutory scheme governing progressive appointment increment becomes due for the services rendered over a year by the government servant subject to his good behaviour. The pay of a central government servant rises, by periodical increments, from a minimum to the maximum in the prescribed scale. The entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day.” (para 24) “In isolation of the purpose it serves the fixation of day succeeding the date of entitlement has no intelligible differentia nor any object is to be achieved by it. The central government servant retiring on 30th June has already completed a year of service and the increment has been earned provided his conduct was good. It would thus be wholly arbitrary if the increment earned by the central government employee on the basis of his good conduct for a year is denied only on the ground that he was not in employment on the succeeding day when increment became payable.” “In the case of a government servant retiring on 30th of June the next day on which increment falls due/becomes payable looses significance and must give way to the right of the government servant to receive increment due to satisfactory services of a year so that the scheme is not construed in a manner that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The scheme for payment of increment would have to be read as whole and one part of Article 151 of CSR 4 cannot be read in isolation so as to frustrate the other part particularly when the other part creates right in the central government servant to receive increment. This would ensure that scheme of progressive appointment remains intact and the rights earned by a government servant remains fortuitous protected and are not denied due circumstance.” to a 8. This Court is in full agreement with the legal proposition laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra). Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.03.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. Since petitioner has rendered a reasonable period of service, his pension is required to be revised by adding the notional increment before the date of his superannuation. Since petitioner has already received the pensionary benefits, the increment which fell due to the petitioner should also be counted for the pensionary benefits and pension should be enhanced/
Decision
refixed accordingly. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 5