The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Ajay Kumar W.P.(S). No. 5215 of 2023 ---------- Versus ………. Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Director, Directorate of Industries, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi. ………. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
06/ 23.02.2024 Heard the parties. ----------- : : ----------
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Deepak Kr. Prasad, Advocate Mr. Apoorv Singh, AC to SC(M) 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to revise the pension, gratuity and leave encashment of the petitioner in the light of Rule-14(iv) of Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal), Rules, 2016. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the effect of punishment has been ended yet respondents have not revised the pensionary benefits of the petitioner by adding two annual increment which has been order to be withheld with non-cumulative effect. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of the Court towards averments made in para- 7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit and submits that since the petitioner has not challenged the order of punishment and during the currency of punishment, petitioner’s two annual increment due on 01.07.2017 and 01.07.2018 was withheld and the same was to be restored on 01.07.2019. However, in the meantime the petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2019 and as such, his pension was rightly fixed as per last pay drawn by him. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner is not entitled for any revision as he has already superannuated on 31.03.2019 and the withheld increments was to be restored on 01.07.2019. 2 5. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled for the benefits as claimed in the instant writ petition. 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 rightly 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 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 one year. In the case of Gopal Singh (supra) in paragraphs 20, 23 and 24, the Delhi High Court has observed and held as under:— “Payment of salary and increment to a central government servant is regulated by the provisions of F.R., CSR and (Para 20) 3 increment 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 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 4 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 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 protected and are not denied due to a fortuitous circumstance.” 6. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, the matter is remitted back to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and if there is no other legal impediments, extend the benefits, as claimed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition
Decision
stands disposed of. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)