Writ Petition No. 1554 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5435 WP No. 1554 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.1554 OF 2023 (S-R) BETWEEN: SRI. M.G. SUDHEENDRA S/O SRI. M.N. GANESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC-RETD PRL SESSION AND DIST JUDGE ADD- NO. 85, GANESHA, 3RD MAIN, 3RD STAGE, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 040 (BY SRI. DALWAI.P.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE -560 001. 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DPAR REFORMS (SERVICES 3), - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5435 WP No. 1554 of 2023 VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE, BANGALORE -560 001. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) KARNATAKA, BANGALORE -560 001. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 21.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE R1 IN NO.ROC-GOB(I) 30/2020 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- J AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5435 WP No. 1554 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a retired Judicial Officer is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the Communication bearing No. ROC-GOB(I)30/2020 dated 21.01.2022 (Annexure-J), wherein the petitioner is informed about rejection of his request for grant of Annual Increment as on 01.07.2011 as there is no provision for grant of Annual Increment as per Rules. The petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to sanction and grant Annual Increment with effect from 01.07.2011 by considering representation dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure-A) and also to re-fix the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner on sanctioning one increment. 2. Heard Sri. Venkatesh.P.Dalwai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Madhukar.M.Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as Sri. V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Decision
Perused the writ petition papers. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5435 WP No. 1554 of 2023 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from Judicial Services on serving about 33 years, on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2011. It is submitted that the date of Annual Increment of the petitioner was on 01.07.2011. The petitioner on completion of service of one year as on 30.06.2011 was entitled for sanction of one increment on 01.07.2011. But the said increment is refused to be granted on the ground that as on the said date, the petitioner was not in service. The representation of the petitioner is rejected in terms of Annexure-J dated 21.01.2022 on the ground that there is no provision to sanction increment. Questioning the said Communication, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in terms of Rule-51 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short 'KCSR'), every Government Servant/Judicial Officer would be entitled for one increment on completion of one year of satisfactory service and increment could be withheld by the Competent Authority in accordance with the Rules applicable for ordering to withhold the increment if his work is not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5435 WP No. 1554 of 2023 satisfactory. In the instant case, it is submitted that the petitioner has completed one year of good service and retired on 30.06.2011. Merely that he was not in service on 01.07.2011, the increment accrued to the petitioner for having completed one year of service cannot be withheld. In that regard, learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401 and prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Madhukar.M. Deshpande would submit that to sanction one increment as on 01.07.2011, the petitioner was not in service. Further, learned counsel would submit that the case of the petitioner was referred to the Government and in terms of Annexure-R3 dated 07.01.2022, clarification is furnished by respondent No.2 for rejection of petitioner's request for grant of one increment. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5435 WP No. 1554 of 2023 falls for consideration is as to "Whether the petitioner would be entitled for sanction of one increment as of 01.07.2011?" 7. Answer to the above point would be in the 'Affirmative' for the following reasons: It is not in dispute that the petitioner, a Judicial Officer retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2011. His usual increment date was on 01.07.2011 of every year. He requested for sanction of increment for the completed year as on 30.06.2011. The said request is rejected stating that as on the said date, the petitioner was not in service and under such circumstances there is no provision for sanction of increment. Identical issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considering an identical provision contained in KPTCL Regulation at Paragraph Nos.17 and 18 has held as follows: "17. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that the annual increment is in the form of incentive and to encourage an employee to perform well and therefore, once he is not in service, there is no question of grant of annual increment is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. In a given case, it may - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5435 WP No. 1554 of 2023 happen that the employee earns the increment three days before his date of superannuation and therefore, even according to the Regulation 40(1) increment is accrued on the next day in that case also such an employee would not have one year service thereafter. It is to be noted that increment is earned on one year past service rendered in a time scale. Therefore, the aforesaid submission is not to be accepted. 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 measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. 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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5435 WP No. 1554 of 2023 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:- (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 increment 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. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5435 WP No. 1554 of 2023 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." "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 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5435 WP No. 1554 of 2023 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." There is no dispute with regard to completion of satisfactory service of one year on 30.06.2011 by the petitioner. If the petitioner has completed satisfactory service of one year as on 30.06.2011, the petitioner would be entitled - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5435 WP No. 1554 of 2023 for one Annual Increment. The principles laid down in the above decision would aptly apply to the case of the petitioner. 8. For the reasons stated above, the following: ORDER (a) Writ petition is allowed; (b) Annexure-J bearing No.ROC-GOB(I)30/2020 dated 21.01.2022 is quashed; (c) Writ of mandamus is issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3 directing to sanction one Annual Increment to the petitioner on completion of one year satisfactory service as on 30.06.2011 and consequently revise his pension and pensionary benefits, pay arrears. (d) Time for compliance: Three months from today. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35