Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Arun Kumar Shrivastava on 10 July, 2017
W.A. No.717/2016
[State of M.P. and others vs. Arun Kumar Shrivastava]
10.07.2017
Shri A.P. Singh, Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.
Shri Umesh Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent.
Challenge in the present intra-court appeal is to an order passed by the Single Bench on 16-03-2016 in W.P. No.13307/2012 whereby the writ petition was allowed and the petitioner-respondent was directed to be paid annual increment as due on 01-7-2010. Entire controversy is based upon Rule 9 of the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 [hereinafter referred to as `the Rules']. It reads when translated in English thus:
"9. Date of next increment in the revised pay structure-
There will be a uniform date of annual increment, viz. 1st July of every year. Employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st of July will be eligible to be granted the increment. The first increment after fixation of pay on 1.1.2006 in the revised pay structure will be granted on 1.7.2006 for those employees for whom the date of next increment was between 1st July, 2006 to 31 December, 2006.
Provided that in the case of persons who had been drawing maximum of the existing scale for more than a year as on the 1st day of January, 2006, the next increment in the revised pay structure shall be allowed on the 1st day of January, 2006. Thereafter, the provision of Rule 9 would apply."
The writ petitioner/respondent was born on 01-7-1950, therefore, his date of superannuation was 30-6-2010. The annual increment as per Rule 9 of the Rules is due to those government employee on 1st July every year, who have completed more than six months of service.
The argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent is that since he has completed six months of service, therefore, the annual increment as on 01-7-2010 is admissible to him.
Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that since the writ petitioner retired only a day before the due date of annual increment, i.e. 01-7-2010 as provided in Rule 9 of the Rules and he has worked for the entire period, therefore, the benefit of annual increment cannot be denied to him.
We do not find any merit in the reasoning ascribed by the learned Single Judge. Annual increment is due only if the employee was in service on the due date, i.e. 01-7-2010. He has already been granted annual increment as due on 01-7-2009, however, an increment could have been granted to an employee only if he was in service on 1st July of that particular year. Since the writ petitioner/respondent attained the age of superannuation one day prior to the cutoff date, i.e. 30.6.2010, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the next annual increment. The mere fact that the writ petitioner has retired a day earlier, will not entitle him for grant of annual increment, the cutoff date, would always bar candidates from getting a benefit. The cutoff date cannot be ignored as it is sacrosanct. Therefore, the mere fact that the writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation a day before the date of grant of increment, he cannot be held entitled for the benefit of the same.
An employee who is not in service on the due date of grant of increment, cannot get the benefit of the increment. Reliance is placed by the counsel for the State on the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in Principal Accountant General, A.P. and another vs. C. Subba Rao, 2005 LAB I.C. 1224. The relevant para of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"54. In support of the above observations, the Division Bench also placed reliance on Banerjee case (supra). We are afraid, the Division Bench was not correct in coming to the conclusion that being a reward for unblemished past service, Government servant retiring on the last day of the month would also be entitled for increment even after such increment is due after retirement. We have already made reference to all Rules governing the situation.
There is no warrant to come to such conclusion. Increment is given (See Article 43 of CS Regulations) as a periodical rise to a Government employee for the good behaviour in the service. Such increment is possible only when the appointment is "Progressive Appointment" and it is not a universal rule. Further, as per Rule 14 of the Pension Rules, a person is entitled for pay, increment and other allowances only when he is entitled to receive pay from out of Consolidated Fund of India and continues to be in Government service. A person who retires on the last working day would not be entitled for any increment falling due on the next day and payable next day thereafter (See Article 151 of CS Regulations), because he would not answer the tests in these Rules. Reliance placed on Banerjee case (supra) is also in our considered opinion not correct because, as observed by us, Banerjee case (supra) does not deal with increment, but deals with enhancement of DA by the Central Government to pensioners. Therefore, we are not able to accept the view taken by the Division Bench. We accordingly overrule the judgment in Malakondaiah case (supra)."
Considering the aforesaid and in view of the enunciation of law in C. Subba Rao (supra), we find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed and the writ petition is dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed.
(Hemant Gupta) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
ac.