Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Deorao Vithovaji Dukre vs Ordnance Factory Board (Ofb) on 18 July, 2023
elattgy
Sp EN
pune
we
=
if
a ra
ra Rd
ee a =
a ' as
eae
OA No. 2080/aoea
Central Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur
O.A, No. 2080/2020
Tuesday, 18° July, 2029
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J) .
Hon'ble Dr. Bhagwan Sahai, Member {A}
Shri Deorao Vithovaji Dukre,
Aged about 66 years, retired as Supervisor
From Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari,
R/o 80, Adarsh Colony, Behind Police Line,
Takh, Katol Road, Nagpur-440013.
Applicant
(By Mr.B. Lahiri, Advocate}
Versus
Union of India, through,
The Seeretary, Ministry of Defence,
D(Fy-ID, Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi-1r0001,
The D.G.0.F./Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10/A, Shaheed K.Bose Road,
Kolkata-7oo0001,
The General Manager,
Ordnance Factory Ambajhari,
Nagpur ~ 440021,
Accounts Officer,
Ordnance Factory Ambajhari,
Nagpur ~ 440021, .. Respondents
OA No, 2080/2020
ORDER (ORAL)
Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J) --
see In this application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985, the order dated 31° October, 2019 is challenged whereby the benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression scheme (MACP for short) granted to the applicant has been withdrawn. Case of the applicant in brief is that he was appointed om o1%- June, 1984 as Un-skilled Labourer. He completed 30 years of service on 315 May, 2014 which was also the last date of his service, the day of his superannuation. He was granted MACP-III by order dated 13 July, 2019 but it was withdrawn on 31° Oetober, 2019 on the ground that the increment would have become due on ot June, 2014 but he had retired on 31% May, 2014 and therefore he was _ held not entitled to the benefit of MACP-ITL.
2. Respondents filed their affidavit, contending that since the applicant was not entitled to the increment on MACP benefit which would have become due on o1 CMLL OA No, 2080/2020 Beraitany June, 2014. The applicant was wrongly granted benefit of ZV gate Po & ¥ as . 3 . ea + + ¥ 2, FS ) MACP-IH, which has been rightly withdrawn @/) oe subsequently.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the Respondents. The applicant's eounsel submits that this issue is no longer res-integra in terms of Supreme Court judgment in the case of the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors vs. C.P.Mundinamani & Ors [20238 LiveLaw.. (SC)2961. He submits that the Supreme Court has granted increment to all those employees whose date of increment is one day after the retirement. He has placed rellance on para-6.6 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Direetor (Admn. and HR) KPTCL (supra). ae 4. The Respondents' counsel strongly opposed contending that this judgment has no implication to the™ * facts of the present case.
¢ aanbstrg ; ee. a pone Nae, ES OA No, 2080/2020 §. We have considered the submissions of both the counsels. In para-6.6 and 6.7, the Supreme Court recorded following observations :
6.6 The Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh ¢ supra} while dealing with the same issue has observed and held in paragraph 24 as under: + "24, Law is settled that where entitlement to receive a benefit, crystallises in law its denial would be arbitrary unless it is for'a valid reason, The only reason for denying benefit of increment, culled out from the scheme is that the central government servant is not holding the post on the day when the increment becomes payable. This cannot be a valid ground for denying increment since the day following the date on which increment is earned only serves the purpose of ensuring completion ofa year's service with good conduct and no other purpose can be culled ont for it. The concept of day following which the increment is earned has otherwise no purpose to achieve. 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 has been earned provided his conduct was good. It would thus be wholly arbitrary if the increment éarned 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 pari 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." 6,7 Similar view has also been expressed by different High Courts, namely, the Gujarat High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Ma preeeie wee € a a Oa No, 2080/2026 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 andor interpretated would jeadto arbitrariness and denying a government servant the benefit of anmual increment which he has already earned swhile~ 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 be has not performed the duty efficiently.
Any interpretation which would ead to arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness should be avoided. If the interpretation as suggesied on behalf of the appellants and the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is accepted, in that case wt would tantamount to denying a government servant the annual increment which he has earned for the services he has rendered over a year gubject to his good behaviour. The entitlement to receive Increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becames payable on the succeeding day. In the present case the word "acerue' should be understood Uberally 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 entitied 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. Ayyarnperumal (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 Aran Kumar Biswal (supra); and the Gujarat High Court im 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. 1112020 decided on 22.11.2022} and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Hari Prakash Vs. State of Himachal' Pradesh &~ Ors, (CWP Wo. 2503/2016 decided on 06.1 1.2020), Thus Supreme Court had observed that on completion of one year service, the employee is entitled to increment. The '
2. Pere Sons aay.
we <a Pr evan HOY WN OA No. 2o8o/e080 employee has earned increment on the day following the day of his retirement. The argument was advanced by the Government that the Central Government servant is not. holding the post when increment becomes payable. This was held not to be a valid ground for denying increment since the date on which increment is earned only serves the purpose of ensuring completion of a year's service with good conduct and no other purpose can be culled out for it. On the basis of the same analogy, the applicant became entitled to MACP-ITT beneiit.
+, In view of the above analysis of the case, we allow the OA by setting aside the order dated 91% October, goig and restoring the order dated 13h July, 2019. The Respondents are directed to grant the benefit of MACP-III to the applicant in terms of the order dated 13% July, 2019.
8. Original Application is allowed accordingly with no order. x o# ea as to costs.
(Dr. BhagwairSaRai) (Justice M.G. Sewlikar) Member (A) . Member (J) ks sey,