Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Appasaheb Ananda Metkari vs Department Of Posts on 24 January, 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH. MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.77/2024 Date of Decision:24° January, 2024 | CORAM: HON'BLE JUSTICE M.G.SEWLIKAR, MEMBER () HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER KASHYAP, MEMBER (A) 1. Shri Appasaheb Aananada Metkari, S/o Ananada Metkari Age 61 Years, Retired LSG Sub Postmaster Wanlesswadi Post office Residing at Avadhut 222/2 Sonar Mala Hudco Colony Suryanagar Sangli 416416, Mobile No 9421161978, Email metkari iappasaheba@gmail, com 2. Shri. Tatoba Nana Budhnur, S/o Nana Budhnur Age 63 years, Retired Postal Assistant Sangli Head Post office, Resid- ing at Akshay 222/2 Sonar Mala Hudco Colony Suryanagar Sangli 416416, Mobile No. 9404369551, Email- . [email protected] .. Applicants ~ (By Advocate Mr. Hamid Patel) VERSUS 7. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of FPasts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Dethi- 1100017. z. Chief Past Master General, Maharashtra Circle GPO Bidg. Mumbai 400007. 3. Postmaster General, Gos Region Panji 413007. 4. Superintendent of Post Offices, Sangli Division, Sangli 476476. .. Respondents ORDER (Oral) Per: Justice M.G. SEWLIKAR, MEMBER (J)
We are disposing of this OA at the admission stage In view of the Judgement of the Supreme Court dated 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2474 of 2023, titled as The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.
2. The applicants are claiming the relief of the increment due on 01* July as they are to retire on 30° June.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mundina- mani (supra) has held thus:-
"6. The short question which is posed for the cansidera- tion of this Court is whether an employee who-has earned fhe annual increment is entitled fo the same despite the fact that he has retired on the very next day of earning the increment?
6.7. in the present case, the ralevant provision is Regu- lation 40(1) of the Regulations which reads as under -
"Drawals and postponements of increments 40(1). An increment accrues from the day following that on which it is eared. An increment that has accnied shail ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless if is withheld. An increment may be.
_ withheld from an employee by the competent au- thority, if his conduct has not been good, or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withhold- ing of an increment, the withholding authority shall Stale the period for which it is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postpon- ing fulure increments."
6.2. if is the case on behalf of the appellants that the word used in Regulation 40(1} is that an increment ac- crues from the day follawing that on which if is earned and in the present case the increment accrued an the day when they retired and therefore, on that day they . were not in service and therefore, not entitled fo the an- _ nual increment which they might have earned one day earlier. it is also the case on behalf of the appellants that as the increment is in the form of incentive and therefore, when the employees are not in service there is no ques- hon of granting them any annual increment which as such is in the form of incentive.
6.3. At this stage, if is required to be noted that there are divergent views of various High Courts on the issue in- volved. The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the Kerala High Court have taken a contrary view and have taken ihe view canvassed on behalf of the appellants. On the other hand, the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi high Court in the case of Gopal Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Peti- tion (C) No. 10509/2019 decided on 23.01.2020); the Al- lahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs, Union of india and Ors. (Writ A No. 13299/2020 decided on 29.06.2021); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal Vs. State of Odisha and Anr. (Wit Petition No. 17715/2020 decided on 30.07.2021}: and the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (Letters Patent Appeal No. 868/2021) have taken a divergent view than the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and have taken the view that once an empioyee has earned the increment on completing one year ser vice he cannot be denied the benefit of such annual in- crement on his attaining the age of superannuation and/or the day of retirement on the very next day, 6.4. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the ap- pellants that the annual increment is in the form of incan- tive 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, ii may happen that fhe 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. if is to be noted that incre- ment is earned on one year past service rendered in a lime scale, Therefore, the aforesaid submission is nat to be accepted.
6.5. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the ap- pellants 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 concemed, while can- sidering the aforesaid issue. the abject 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 : er SFL oO ot 5 OA No. 77/2024 service. increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. There- fore, ihe increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service for é specified period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he bas eamed 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 incre- ment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (ane year) with good conduct efficiently, Merely because, the gavernment 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 pre- ceding one year. In the case of Gopal Singh (supra) in _ paragraphs 20, 23 and 24, the Delhi High Court has ob- served and held as under: -
"Payment of salary and increment to a central government servant is regulated by the provi- sions of F.R., CSR and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Pay defined in F.R. 9(27) means the amount drawn monthly by a central government servant and includes the increment A plain composite reading of applicable provi- sions leaves no ambiguity that annual increment is given to a government servant fo enable him to discharge duties of the post and that pay and al- fowances are also atfached to the post. Article 43 of the CSR defines progressive appointment fo mean an appointment wherein the pay is pro- gressive, subject to goad behaviour of an officer. It cannotes that pay rises, by periodical incre- ments from a minimum to a maximum. The incre- ment in case of progressive appointment is spec- ified in Article 151 of the CSR to mean that incre-6 OA No. 77/2024
ment accrues from the date following that on which it is earned. The scheme, taken cumula- tively, clearly suggests that appointment of a central government servant is a progressive ap- pointment and periodical increment in pay from a minimum to maximum is part of the pay struc- ture. Article 151 of CSR contemplates that incre- ment accrues from the day following which i is earned. This increment is not a matter of course but is dependent upon good conduct of the ceri- fral government servant it is, therefore, apparent that central government employee earms incre- ment on the basis of his good conduct for speci fied period i.@. a year in case of annual incre- ment increment in pay is thus an integral part of progressive appointment and accrues from the day following which it is earned."
"Annual increment though is attached to the post & becomes payable on a da ¥ following which it is earned but the day on which increment accrues or becomes payable is not conchisive ar determi native. in the statutory scheme goveming pro- gressive appoiniment increment becomes due for the services rendered over a year by the gov- ernment 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 entitie- ment to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requi- Site length of service with good conduct and be- comes 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 fo be achieved by it, The central government servant retiring on 30th dune 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. eamed 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 loases 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 con- strued in a manner that if offends the spirit of rea- sonableness enshrined in Article 714 of the Can- stitution of India. The scheme for payment of in- crement would have fo be read as whole and one part of Article 151 of CSR cannot be read in iso- lation so as to frustrate the other part particularly when the other part creates right in the central government servant fo receive increment. This would ensure thal scheme of progressive ap- pointment remains intact and the rights earned by a government servant remains profected and are nol denied due fo a fortuitous circumstance."
6.6. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra) while dealing with the same issue has ob- served and held in paragraph 24 as under: -
'24, Law is settled that where entitlement to re- ceive 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 goverment servant is not holding the post on the day when the increment becomes payable. This 8 OA No. 77/2024 cannot be a valid ground for denying increment since the day following the date on which incre- ment is earned only serves the purpose of ensur- ing completion of a year's service with good con- duct and no other purpose can be culled out for i. The concept of day following which the incre- ment is eamed has otherwise no purpose fo achieve. in isolation of the purpose if 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 ser- vant retiring on 30th Jane has already completed @ year of service and the increment has been camed provided his conduct was good. ff 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 ra- tiring on 30th of June the next day on which in- crement falls due/becomes payable looses signif icance and must give way fo the night of the gov- ernment servant to receive increment due to sat- isfactory services of a year so that the scheme is not construed in a manner that if offends the spint 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 181 of CSR cannot be read in isolation so as to frustrate the other part particu- larly when the other part creates right in the cen- ral government servant to receive increment. This would ensure that scheme of progressive appointment remains intact and the nights 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, fhe Mad-
hya Pradesh High Court, the Orissa High Court and the Madras High Court. As observed hereinabove, to inter- pret Regulation 40(1} of the Regulations in the manner in which the appellants have understood and/or interpretat- ed would lead to arbitrariness and denying a government Servant the benefit of annual increment which he has al- ready 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 ar- bitrariness and/or unreasonableness should be avoided if the interpretation as suggested on behalf of the appel- fants and the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra -- Pradesh High Court is accepted, in that case it would fantamount fo denying a government servant the annual increment which he has eared for the services he has rendered over a year subject fo his good behaviour. The entitlement fo 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 "ac- crue" should be understood liberally and would mean payabie on the succeeding day. Any contrary view would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness and denying @ 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 4 narrow interpretation should be avoided. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in the ease 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 ihe case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria (supra); the Grissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal (supra); and the Gujarat High Court in the case 10 OA No. 77/2024 of Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra). We da not ap- prove the contrary view taken by the Full Bench of the Andira Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Ac- countant-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. 1141/2020 decid- ed on 22.47.2022) and the Himachal Praclesh High Court in the case of Mari Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided! on 08.77.2020), ?. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with the view faken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dis- missed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs, | LA. No. 149091/2022 stands disposed of in terms of the above." (emphasis supplied)
4. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the ap- plicants are entitled to notional increment as their date of © retirement are 30" June of different years. |
5. In view of the above, respondents are directed to _ grant notional increment to the applicants from the next date of his retirement within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, I Lannea aaa teas ea aa aaa naan gage aaa aa aaa as aaa aa ananassae Sgt?
1d Ga No. 77/20246. Accordingly, the OA stands disposed of. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs. | a ( Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice M.G.Sewlikar) | Member(A) Member (J) nk,