The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.35105 of 2021 Pradipta Kumar Satpathy State of Odisha and others Petitioner Mr. Nira Sundar Panda, Advocate …. -versus- …. Opposite Parties
Decision
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 09.07.2024 Order No. 03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. The petitioner had joined in the post of Junior Assistant on 26.10.1981 and promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 10.05.1983. Subsequently, he also got promoted to the post of Section Officer on 08.02.2008 and thereafter to the Rank of Assistant Controller of Accounts, where he joined on 15.04.2014. He was retired from service with effect from 30.04.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation, being his date of birth is 15.04.1958. 3. Since his increment fell due on 01.05.2018, he was not extended said benefit as he got retired from service on 30.04.2018. In consideration of his representation before the authority concerned, the Additional Controller of Accounts rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of annual increment. Such rejection was communicated to the petitioner vide Letter No.CAO-OE-PG-0001- 2021-1185-CA., dated 20.09.2021, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- Page 1 of 5 “Govt. in Finance Department have stated that “Sri Pradipta Kumar Satapathy, Ex-Assistant Controller of Accounts (Retired) has been sanctioned last Annual increment w.e.f. 01.05.2017 and he retired from service w.e.f. 30.04.2018 AN. As, Sri Satapathy was not in service on 01.05.2018 i.e., anniversary date, although he has served a year, his representation has not been considered” 4. Mr. Nira Sundar Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the rejection is not tenable in the eye of law, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Director (Admin. and HR), KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401, the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar and others in W.P.(C) No.15732 of 2017 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Arun Kumar Biswal Vs. State of Odisha in W.P.(C) No.17715 of 2020. 4.1. He also brought to our notice that this Court in Division Bench passed an order dated 26.02.2024 in the case of State of Odisha and another Vs. Arun Kumar Biswal in W.A. No.117 of 2022 In the said case the following order as passed is quoted hereunder:- increment and payment “***5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate assailing the impugned order has submitted that the rules applicable to the employees of Odisha State Government in the matter of determination of thereon are substantially different from that of the Central Government employees under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. It has been argued that the respondent could not be held entitled to increment with effect from 01.01.2020 when he was not in service, keeping in mind the provision under Rule 10 of the Odisha Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2017 read with Rule 56 of the Odisha Service Code. Page 2 of 5 6. Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel representing the respondent that the Supreme Court in the case of the Director (Admin. and HR), KPTCL and Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401 has specifically approved the decision of this Court which the appellants have put to challenge in the present intra Court appeal. He has submitted that since the Supreme Court has, in no uncertain terms in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), recorded complete agreement with view taken by this Court in the decision rendered by learned Single Judge which is under challenge in the present appeal, no useful purpose shall be served by going into the submissions, which have been advanced on behalf of the State. 7. After having gone through the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), we are satisfied that the Supreme Court in the said case has recorded complete agreement with the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in the present case. In such circumstance, the legality of the impugned decision rendered by the learned Single Judge cannot be gone into by this Court. It would be useful for us to refer to paragraph 6.7 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case C.P. Mundinamani (supra), which reads as under: “6.7 Similar view has also been expressed by different High Courts, namely, the Gujarat High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Orissa High Court and the Madras High Court. As observed hereinabove, to interpret Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations in the manner in which the Appellants have understood and/or interpretated would lead to arbitrariness and denying a government servant the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned while rendering specified period of service with good conduct and efficiently in the last preceding year. It would be punishing a person for no fault of him. As observed hereinabove, the increment can be withheld only by way of punishment or he has not performed the duty efficiently. Any interpretation which would lead to arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness should be avoided. If the interpretation as suggested on behalf of the appellants and the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is accepted, in that case it would tantamount to denying a government servant the annual increment which he has earned for the services he has rendered over a year subject to his Page 3 of 5 good behaviour. 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 the present case the word “accrue” should be understood liberally and would mean payable on the succeeding day. Any contrary view would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness and denying a government servant legitimate one annual increment though he is entitled to for rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiently and therefore, such a narrow interpretation should be avoided. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria (supra); the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal (supra); and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra). We do not approve the contrary view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh (supra) and the decisions of the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Pavithran (O.P.(CAT) No. 111/2020 decided on 22.11.2022) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Hari Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020).” 8. In such view of the matter, we find no merit in the present appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.” 5. Ms. Saswata Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties has contended that since retirement of the petitioner from service was on 30.04.2018 and he was not available in the service on 01.05.2018 and his last annual increment was with effect from 01.05.2017, he is not entitled to the benefit claimed in this petition. The Additional Controller of Accounts was, therefore, justified in rejecting the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-4. Page 4 of 5 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court finds force in the contention of the petitioner. In view of order dated 26.02.2024 passed in the case of Arun Kumar Biswal (supra), based on the legal position set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), the writ petition succeeds and the petitioner is entitled to get the notional increment for the year 01.05.2017 to 30.04.2018 for the purpose of pensionary benefit only and the authority concerned is directed to sanction notional increment as admissible. 7. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Laxmikant (M.S. Raman) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 09-Jul-2024 18:14:04 Page 5 of 5