Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Prahladbhai Haribhai Patel on 19 April, 2023
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
C/LPA/277/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 277 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11571 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 277 of 2023
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 281 of 2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11493 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 281 of 2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11493 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 343 of 2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16475 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 343 of 2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16475 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 393 of 2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14003 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 393 of 2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14003 of 2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 482 of 2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15155 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 482 of 2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15155 of 2021
With
Page 1 of 13
Downloaded on : Wed Apr 26 20:30:49 IST 2023
C/LPA/277/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 549 of 2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20181 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 549 of 2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20181 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 550 of 2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12124 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 550 of 2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12124 of 2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 540 of 2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2955 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 540 of 2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2955 of 2020
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 other(s)
Versus
PRAHLADBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance in:
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 277 of 2023 & CIVIL APPLICATION
MR KURVEN DESSAI, AGP for the appellants
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in:
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 281 of 2023 & CIVIL APPLICATION
MR SHIVAM DIXIT, AGP for the appellants
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in:
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 343 of 2023 & CIVIL APPLICATION
MR KURVEN DESSAI, AGP for the appellants
MS KRUTI M SHAH, for the Respondents
Appearance in:
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 393 of 2023 & CIVIL APPLICATION
Page 2 of 13
Downloaded on : Wed Apr 26 20:30:49 IST 2023
C/LPA/277/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023
MR SHIVAM DIXIT, AGP for the appellants
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 482 of 2023 & CIVIL APPLICATION
MR KURVEN DESSAI, AGP for the appellants
Appearance in:
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 549 of 2023 & CIVIL APPLICATION
MR KURVEN DESSAI, AGP for the appellants
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in:
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 550 of 2023 & CIVIL APPLICATION
MR SHIVAM DIXIT, AGP for the appellants
Appearance in:
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 540 of 2023 & CIVIL APPLICATION
MR SHIVAM DIXIT, AGP for the appellants
MR SHIRISH H GOHIL, Adv. for Respondent Nos.1 - 2
MR RASHESH A RINDANI, Adv. for Respondent Nos.1 - 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 19/04/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
1. All these Letters Patent Appeals, which are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellants- original respondents challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned petitions, whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petitions filed by the respective respondents-original petitioners. Page 3 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 26 20:30:49 IST 2023
C/LPA/277/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023
2. As the issue involved in all these appeals is similar, learned advocates appearing for the parties jointly requested that all these appeals be heard together and the same may be decided together by this common order.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts as stated in Special Civil Application No.11571 of 2021 are considered.
4. It is the case of the original petitioner that he had joined the service of the respondent No.2 as an Instructor (Printing) on 23.03.1981. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Rector-cum-Superintendent, (Class III). The petitioner retired from the service on 30.06.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation from the aforesaid post (Class III). It is therefore, the case of the petitioner that he had rendered service for more than 31 years with the respondent. It is further the case of the petitioner that after retirement from the service, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Industrial Promotion Officer (Class II) with deemed date of promotion Page 4 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 26 20:30:49 IST 2023 C/LPA/277/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023 i.e. with effect from 01.06.2009 vide order dated 21.08.2019. It is also the case of the petitioner that before his retirement from service, the petitioner had rendered one full year of service from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2012 and therefore, he was entitled to get the benefit of annual increment for the said period of service. The petitioner had also submitted that as per the policy of the Government, the said increment was due on 01.07.2012. However as the petitioner had retired from service on 30.06.2012, he was not granted the said benefit by the respondent authority. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation to the concerned respondent. However, the respondent authority rejected the said representation. The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal, being Appeal No.188 of 2020, before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal also rejected the said appeal on technical ground that the claim of the petitioner was against the policy of State Government and the same cannot be accepted. The petitioner therefore, filed captioned petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide Page 5 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 26 20:30:49 IST 2023 C/LPA/277/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023 impugned order dated 03.08.2022 allowed the said petition filed by the petitioner, and therefore, the appellants-State Government has preferred the appeals.
5. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellants- original respondents and the learned advocates appearing for the respondents original petitioners.
6. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that while allowing the captioned petitions filed by the respective respondents- original petitioners, the learned Single Judge placed reliance upon the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.868 of 2021 wherein, the learned Single Judge has granted benefit of one increment to the respective petitioners.
7. Thus, as observed hereinabove, the issue involved in all these appeals being identical, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matters are Page 6 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 26 20:30:49 IST 2023 C/LPA/277/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023 taken up together for final disposal.
8. The learned AGP mainly submits that as the respective petitioners have retired from the service on 30 th June of particular year and the increment was due on 1 st July, they are not entitled to claim to the said annual increment as per the policy of the Government. In spite of that, learned Single Judge has allowed all the aforesaid petitions, and thereby, directed the appellants- original respondents to grant benefit of one increment to the petitioner in case of the petitioners retired from the service. It is also directed to revise their pension. The learned AGP has, therefore, urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside.
9. The learned AGP, thereafter, submits that while allowing the petition, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon an order dated 27.04.2022 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.868 of 2021. It is submitted that in the Letters Patent Appeal No.868 of 2021, the Division Page 7 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 26 20:30:49 IST 2023 C/LPA/277/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023 Bench of this Court has placed reliance upon an order passed by Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar & Others, being in Writ Petition No.15732 of 2017 decided on 15.9.2017 as well as the order passed by Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No.10509 of 2019 decided on 23.01.2020. At this stage, it is submitted that against the order passed by Madras High Court as well as Delhi High Court, the SLPs were preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and therefore, the learned Single Judge has wrongly placed reliance upon the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.868 of 2021.
10. On the other hand, learned advocates appearing for the respondents-original petitioners have pointed out that recently on 11.04.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 in the case of The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the entitlement to receive Page 8 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 26 20:30:49 IST 2023 C/LPA/277/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023 increment crystallizes 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. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that the view taken by Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra) as well as the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (Letters Patent Appeal No.868 of 2021) is correct view. The learned advocates therefore, urged that now when the issue involved in the present appeals is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, all these appeals be dismissed.
11. We have perused the documents which are placed on record and we have also considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that the learned Single Judge Page 9 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 26 20:30:49 IST 2023 C/LPA/277/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023 has allowed all the captioned petitions after placing reliance upon the order dated 27.04.2022 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.868 of 2021 in the case of State of Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:
"5.2 The view taken by the Madras High Court in P.Ayyamperumal (supra) and by Delhi High Court in Gopal Singh (supra) and other High Courts as above, holding that the government servant is entitled to increment becoming payable on 1st July, even though he has retired on 30th June, is required to be accepted. This court is in concurrence with the view taken in the aforesaid decisions by the Madras High Court and the Delhi High Court and the reasons supplied therein. This court is unable to subscribe to the converse view taken by High Courts of Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan."
12. Thus, from the aforesaid observation made by the Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that the Government servant is entitled to increment becoming payable on 1 st July, even though, he has retired on 30th June. The said view is taken by Madras High Court as well as Delhi High Court and this Court has also accepted the said view taken Page 10 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 26 20:30:49 IST 2023 C/LPA/277/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023 by the two different High Courts and thereby dismissed the appeal filed by the State Government. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL (supra) decided this identical issue and has observed in para 6.7 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 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 Page 11 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 26 20:30:49 IST 2023 C/LPA/277/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023 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)."
13. From the observation made by the learned Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in complete agreement with a view taken by Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra), Delhi High Court in case of Gopal Singh (supra) as well as Gujarat High Court in the case of Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra). Thus, in view of the aforesaid recent decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the issue involved in the Page 12 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 26 20:30:49 IST 2023 C/LPA/277/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023 present appeals is squarely covered by the said decision.
14. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present cases, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned order, and therefore, no interference is required. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
15. In view of the dismissal of the appeals, the Civil Applications would not survive and the same are disposed of.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 13 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 26 20:30:49 IST 2023