Chattisgarh High Court
Basant Kumar Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 February, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:8993
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1336 of 2025
1 - Basant Kumar Baghel S/o Ganesh Prasad Aged About 66 Years R/o Village -
Teekarkala (Ghathapara) Near Oxford English School, Pendra Road, District-
Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department (P.W.D.),
Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Department Of Finance Through Its Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department (P.W.D.), Atal Nagar, Sector 19,
Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department (P.W.D.), Bilaspur Circle,
District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
5 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department (P.W.D.), Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur
(C.G.)
6 - Executive Engineer (Pendra Division) Public Works Department (P.W.D.),
Pendra Road, District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.)
7 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pensions - Bilaspur Division,
Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
8 - Treasury Officer District Treasury Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/02/2025
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the circular passed by the Department of Finance, Government of Chhattisgarh dated 15.07.2020 2 (Annexure P/1).
2. The relevant facts in brief is that the petitioner herein is the employee working under the Government of Chhattisgarh and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on the 30th of June. According to the petitioner the respondent- Government while granting the post retiral benefits including the pensionary benefits ought to have counted the same by granting the increment which the petitioner was entitled for w.e.f. 1st of July of the year in which he was retired from service.
3. It is also the contention of the petitioner that petitioner has not been granted the annual increment that fell due for the entire year that he has worked preceding the date of retirement and which he is otherwise entitled for under the service rules. Therefore, while quantifying the post retiral benefits including the pensionary benefits that benefit of one additional increment ought to has been also taken into account.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner was retired on attaining the age of superannuation. However, counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is entitled to get annual increment from 1st July of every year but since the petitioner has retired from the service his claim for annual increment has not been considered by the respondents authorities. He further submits that the petitioner has already worked for the entire period, therefore, he is entitle for annual increment. He further submits that similar issue was dealt by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.A.No. 363/2020 and is squarely covered by order passed by this Court in WPS No. 2351/2023 on 11/04/2023 and WPS No. 3036 of 2020 and other connected matters on 10.07.2023. Therefore, for the time being, he may be permitted to make representation and the respondent 3 authorities may be directed to decide the same in the light of judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as well as order passed by this Court.
5. The State Government on the other hand took a stand that since petitioner stood superannuated w.e.f. 30th of June of the year and on the 1st of July, since he was not on the rolls of the State Government as employees, the benefit which was to be extended w.e.f. 1st of July cannot be granted to the petitioner for the said reason. In order to clarify the same, the State Government had issued the impugned circular dated 15.07.2020. The said circular had been passed by the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh in the light of a judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in WP No. 15732/2017. The stand of the respondent-State of Chhattisgarh was that the said judgment of the Madras High Court cannot be implemented in a straight jacket formula and that it has to be accepted to be a judgment in persona and not a judgment in rem and moreover that would not be binding on the service Rules governing the State of Chhattisgarh.
6. The issue as to whether the employee who has retired on the 30th of June would be entitled for the increment which fell due w.e.f. 1st of July of the year is subject matter of dispute before various High Courts in the country. Many of the High Courts have allowed the writ petitions and few of the High Courts have rejected the petitions.
7. Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in WA No.363/2020 held as under:
"The question is having worked for entire year to the satisfaction of the employer whether an incumbent can be denied the benefit merely because he stood retired on a day early to the date of increment. An 4 issue of similar nature came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in S. Banerjee vs. Union of India : AIR 1990 SC 285 wherein the petitioner who having retired on January 1st 1986 claimed the benefit under paragraph 17.3 of Fourth Central Pay Commission Report Part II, held that-
"6. Under paragraph 17.3, the benefits recommended will be avail to employees retiring during the period, January 1, 1986 to September 30, 1986. So the employees retiring on January, 1986 will be entitled to the benefit under para- graph 17.3. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner has retired on January 1, 1986. We have already extracted the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court with effect from the forenoon of January 1, 1986. It is true that in view of the proviso to rule 5(2) of the Rules, the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary for the day on which he actually retired. But, in our opinion, that has no bearing on the question as to the date of retirement. Can it be said that the petitioner retired on December 31, 1985? The answer must be in the negative. Indeed, Mr. Anti Dev Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, frankly conceded that the petitioner could not be said to have retired from the service of this Court on 14 December 31, 1985. Then it must be held that the petitioner had retired with effect from January 1, 1986 and that is also the order of this Court dated December 6, 1985. It may be that the petitioner had retired with effect from the forenoon of January 1, 1986 as per the said order of this Court, that is to say, as soon as January 1, 1986 had commenced the petitioner retired. But, 5 nevertheless, it has to be said that the petitioner had retired on January 1, 1986 and not on December 31, 1985. In the circumstances, the petitioner comes within the purview of para-graph 17.3 of the recommendations of the Pay Commission."
8. The Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar decided on 15-9- 2017 in WP No.15732 of 2017 has held in paras 6 & 7 which read as under.
"6. In the case on hand, the petitioner got retired on 30.06.2013. As per the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the increment has to be given only on 01.07.2013,but he had been superannuated on30.06.2013 itself. The judgment referred to by the petitioner in State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department and others v. M. Balasubramaniam, reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 6525, was passed under similar circumstances on 20.09.2012, wherein this Court confirmed the order passed in W.P.No.8440 of 2011 allowing the writ petition fled by the employee, by observing that the employee had completed one full year of service from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003, which entitled him to the benefit of increment which accrued to him during that period.
7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The 15 petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 6 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
9. The entire issue thereafter traveled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others" reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401. In the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in very categorical terms held that once the petitioner has earned an increment on completing one year of service, he cannot be denied the benefit of increment, which in other words also means that if on the date of retirement, which in this writ petition being 30th of June, if he has earned an increment of having worked for 12 months (one year) preceding to the date of retirement, he, under no circumstances can be denied the benefit of increment while quantifying the post retiral benefits.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in deciding the said case has affirmed the orders of the High Courts which had allowed the writ petitions in favour of the employees and have set-aside the orders of those High Courts, which had dismissed the writ petitions categorically holding that the employees, who stood retired from 30th of June and where the increment fell due on the 1st of July would become entitle for their post retiral benefits and consequential monetary benefits by adding that one increment.
11. It is worthwhile to mention here that this court dealing with the similar issue in bunch of writ petitions vide order dated 10.07.2023 passed in WPS No. 3036/2020 and connected writ petitions allowed the writ petitions. This Court observed as under:-
7
"11. Given the said submission by the learned State counsel and also in the light of the judgment recently rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court laying to rest the entire issue so far as granting of increment to persons who stood retired on the 30th of June, the present bunch of writ petitions stand disposed of firstly by quashing the circular dated 15.07.2020, which in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "C.P. Mundinamani"
(supra) would not any further be sustainable and the same therefore stands quashed.
12. The respondents are directed to verify the case of each of the petitioners as to whether they have been granted increment from 1st of January of the year in which they have retired. That if in the course of inquiry/scrutiny it is found that they have not been granted increment, appropriate steps for grant of increment which fell due on 1st of July be added to the basic pay of each of the petitioners and accordingly calculate the post retiral benefits including the pensionary benefits. Let this entire exercise be concluded within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order."
12. Therefore in light of the above, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated dated 10.07.2023 passed in WPS No. 3036/2020 and connected writ petitions.
Digitally Sd/-
signed by
SHAYNA (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
KADRI
Judge
Shayna