Allahabad High Court
Nand Vijay Singh And 3 Others vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 29 June, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 1791
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13299 of 2020 Petitioner :- Nand Vijay Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagannath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Kumar Rai,Arun Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
1. All the four petitioners have superannuated from Railway Protection Force, on 30th June, 2019 from the post of Inspector/Sub Inspector/Assistant Sub Inspector and Head Constable, respectively. They claim to have worked for the entire year i.e. 1.7.2018 to 30.6.2019, with good conduct, and have thus raised a claim for grant of annual increment for the year 2018-19. Annual increment for the year 2018-19, however, fell due under the relevant rules only on 1.7.2019, by when the petitioners had superannuated. Their claim has consequently been rejected by the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, North Central Railway, Allahabad vide orders dated 24.2.2020, 27.1.2020 and 2.3.2020. These orders are challenged in the present writ petition.
2. A counter affidavit and later a supplementary-counter affidavit has been filed in the matter on behalf of the respondents, to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the writ petitioners. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself. I have heard Sri J.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials on record.
3. Petitioner no. 1 was initially appointed as Constable in the respondent Railway Protection Force on 29.7.1978 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 1989. He was further promoted to the post of Sub Inspector in the year 2001 and then promoted as Inspector in the year 2010. He has superannuated on 30.6.2019. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Constable on 1.8.1978 and has been promoted to higher posts from time to time. He has superannuated on 30.6.2019 from the post of Sub Inspector. Petitioner No. 3 was appointed as Constable in the same Force on 15.10.1979 and has ultimately superannuated on 30.6.2019 from the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. Petitioner No. 4 was appointed as Constable on 4.11.1980 and has superannuated on 30.6.2019 from the post of Head Constable.
4. Pension and other retiral benefits have been sanctioned to all the petitioners vide orders dated 26.6.2019 and 27.6.2019, w.e.f. 1.7.2019. Annual increment payable for the completed satisfactory work during recruitment year 2018-19, however, has been denied to them. According to respondents annual increment for the satisfactory working in the recruitment year fell due only on 1.7.2019 by when petitioners were not in employment, as such, the annual increment for the year 2018-19 is not due to them.
5. Issue as to whether annual increment payable under the Service Rules on 1st of July, upon satisfactory working for the previous year 1st July to 30th June could be paid to the employees retiring on 30th June has been examined by different High Courts and there appears to be lack of uniformity in the views so expressed. Learned counsel for the parties have relied upon judgments which supports their respective claim. It would, therefore, be appropriate to proceed with deliberations on the issue after noticing the judgments available on the subject, that are cited before me.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of the Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal Vs. Registrar, CAT, in Writ Petition No. 15732 of 2017, decided on 15.9.2017, wherein the Court has allowed payment of annual increment to a government servant, in similar circumstances, wherein also he retired on 30th of June and under the Rules payment of annual increment fell due on the 1st of July, next. The reasoning is assigned in paragraphs 6 & 7 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereinafter:-
"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 on 30.06.2013 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 filed 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 petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 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."
7. A special leave petition (civil) preferred against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed in limine by the Supreme Court on 23.7.2018 vide following order:-
"Delay condoned.
On the facts, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
The special leave petition is dismissed."
8. A review petition filed in the matter also got dismissed on 8.8.2019.
9. The Judgment of Madras High Court has been followed by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Gopal Singh Vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition (C) 10509 of 2019, decided on 23.1.2020.
10. In P. Ayyamperumal (supra) the Court placed reliance upon an earlier order of the same High Court to hold that once the employee had completed one full year of service as on 30.6.2013, the benefit of increment earned on the basis of such completed service of one year cannot be denied only because such increment fell due on 1.7.2013, by when the government servant had retired. Petitioners submit that the ratio laid down in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra) as followed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of increment which fell due on 1.7.2019. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of Lucknow Bench of this Court in P.P. Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021(1)ADJ 646 wherein also the Court has taken a similar view.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, places reliance upon a Delhi High Court Judgment, dated 23.10.2018, in the case of Union of India Vs. G.C. Yadav, Writ Petition (C) 9062 of 2018, decided on 23.10.2018. Learned counsel also places reliance Upon a Division Bench Judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Hari Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP No. 2503 of 2016 and other connected petition, decided on 6.11.2020. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has, in turn, followed a Full Bench Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another Vs. C. Subba Rao and others reported in 2005(4) ESC 2862. The Court's have opined that as government servant retiring on last day of the preceding month is deemed to have become pensioner on the next date, as such, he ceases to be borne on the establishment w.e.f beginning of the first day of the succeeding month, and would not be entitled to payment of annual increment in pay.
12. The Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Accountant General (Supra) has meticulously noticed all applicable provisions operating in the field. This Court has the benefit of erudite judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.V.S. Rao of Andhra Pradesh High Court on the issue and the statutory scheme noticed therein can safely be relied upon for adjudicating the question raised in this petition. Following two issues fell for consideration before the Andhra Pradesh High Court:
"I. Whether a Government servant who retires on the last working day of the preceding month and whose annual increment falls due on the first of the succeeding month is entitled for sanction of annual increment for the purpose of pension and gratuity?
II. Whether a retired Government servant is entitled for revised rate of D.A. which comes into force after such Government servant retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation?"
13. Paragraphs 12 to 17 of the Judgment refers to the statutory scheme on the first question formulated for consideration by the full bench and are reproduced hereinafter:-
"12. Keeping in view some of the relevant service law principles mentioned hereinabove, a reference has to necessarily be made to the relevant Rules, which fall for consideration. First set of Rules is Fundamental Rules applicable to all Central Government Servants. Second set of Rules is Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, and thirdly Civil Services Regulations. We propose to examine the issue with reference to Fundamental Rules and Pension Rules separately and view the controversy in juxta position of all these Rules.
Fundamental Rules
13. Fundamental Rules are core Rules governing all general conditions of service like pay, leave, deputation, retirement and dismissal, removal and suspension. All Central Government employees are governed by these Rules. If there are Special Rules governing a particular "service" and in event conflict with Fundamental Rules, Special Rules would prevail, for generalia specialibus non derogant.
14. F.R.9 contains definitions of the terms used in Fundamental Rules (FR 9(23), (24), (25) and (28) define the terms 'Personal Pay' 'Presumptive Pay', 'Special Pay' and 'Substantive Pay), F.R. 9(6), (21) and (31) define the terms 'duty', 'pay' and 'time-scale of pay', which read as under:
9(6) "Duty " - (a) Duty includes-
(i) service as a probationer or apprentice provided that such service is followed by confirmation; and
(ii) joining time.
(b) A Government servant may be treated as on duty-
(i) during a course of instruction or training in India, or
(ii) in the case of a student, stipendiary or otherwise, who is entitled to be appointed to the service of Government on passing through a course of training at a University, College or School in India, during the interval between the satisfactory completion of the course and his assumption of duties.
9(21) "Pay" (a) Pay means the amount drawn monthly by a Government servant as-
(i) the pay, other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity, or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre; and
(ii) overseas pay, special pay and personal pay; and
(iii) any other emoluments which may be specially classed as pay by the President
(b) Not printed.
(c) Not printed.
9(31) "Time-scale of pay"-
(a) Time-scale of pay means pay which, subject to any condition prescribed in these rules, rises by periodical increments from a minimum to a maximum. It includes the class of pay hitherto known as progressive.
(b) Time-scales are to be identical if the minimum, the maximum, the period of increment and the rate of increment of the time-scales are identical.
(c) A post is said to be on the same time-scale as another post on a time-scale if the two time-scales are identical and the posts fall within a cadre, or a class in a cadre, such cadre or class having been created in order to fill all posts involving duties of approximately the same character or degree of responsibility, in a service or establishment or group of establishments, so that the pay of the holder of any particular post is determined by his position in the cadre or class and not by the fact that he holds that post.
15. Chapter-Ill of the Fundamental Rules contains "General conditions of service". Chapter-IV deals with "Pay" whereas Chapter-IX deals with "Retirement". F.R. 17. and F.R.56 insofar as they are relevant read as under:
F.R.17. (1) Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules and to the provision of sub-rule (2), an officer shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties:
Provided that an officer who is absent from duty without any authority shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period of such absence. (2) The date from which a person recruited overseas shall commence to draw pay on first appointment shall be determined by the general or special orders of the authority by whom he is appointed.
F.R. 56. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years:
Provided that a Government servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years.
Provided further that a Government servant who has attained the age of fifty-eight years on or before the first day of May, 1998 and is on extension in service, shall retire from the service on expiry of his extended period of service, or on the expiry of any further extension in service granted by the Central Government in public interest, provided that no such extension in service shall be granted beyond the age of 60 years.
(b) A workman who is governed by these rules shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years.
16. As per F.R. 17, extracted hereinabove, a Government servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of that post until he ceases to discharge those duties. "Pay" as defined in F.R.9(21)(a) means, the amount drawn monthly by a Government servant which also includes the increment given at an anterior date. Therefore, after retirement, a person will not be entitled to any pay including the increment that may be due from the posterior date. F.R.22 regulates the initial pay of a Government servant who is appointed to a post in time-scale and F.R.24 and F.R.26 regulate the sanction of increment to a Government servant, who is on duty. A reading of various Fundamental Rules extracted hereinabove would show that a person appointed as a Government servant is entitled to pay in time- scale of pay. He is also entitled to draw the increment as per time-scale of pay as a matter of course as long as such Government servant discharges duties of the post and such Government servant shall not be entitled to draw the pay and allowances attached to the post as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. In other words, as per F.R. 17 read with F.Rs.24 and 26 annual increment is given to a Government servant to enable him to discharge duty and draw pay and allowances attached to the post. If such Government servant ceases to discharge duties by any reason say, by reason of attainment of age of superannuation, such Government servant will not be entitled to draw pay and allowances. As a necessary corollary, such employee would not be entitled to any increment if it falls due after the date of retirement, be it on the next day of retirement or sometime thereafter.
17. F.R.56(a) creates a legal fiction. Even if a person attains the age of 60 years on any day of the month, he shall be retired on the afternoon of the last day of the month. A Government servant, who attains the age of 60 years on any day in a month, is deemed to have not attained the superannuation till the last day of the month. In the case of a Government servant, whose date of birth is first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of 60 years. In this case, actually and factually, a Government servant would have completed the age of 60 years a day before the date on which his date of birth falls. Therefore, there are two situations. In the first situation, a Government servant though he attains the age of 60 years on any day of the month, he is deemed to have not attained such age till the afternoon of the last day of that month. Assuming that such a situation is not contemplated - as in the case of persons holding constitutional offices like, Judges of Supreme Court, High Court, Members of Election Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General etc; if a Government servant is retired on a day before the actual date of birth on any day of the month and the increment of such Government servant falls on the first of the succeeding month, can he claim annual grade increment? The answer must be an emphatic "no". Because, by the date on which the increment falls due, such Government servant ceased to be a Government servant. It is therefore logical and reasonable to conclude that merely because for the purpose of F.R.56(a), a person is continued till the last date of the month in which he attains the age of superannuation, such an employee cannot claim increment which falls due on the first day of the succeeding month after retirement."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
14. While referring to the second question formulated for consideration, the Full Bench noticed relevant provisions of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules and also the methodology followed for calculating pension and the manner of calculating average emoluments. The Court traced the origin of the Fundamental Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "F.R.") and Civil Service Rules in paragraph 23 onwards and went on to hold on the basis of Articles 151 to 154 of Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "CSR") that increment accrues only following the date on which it is earned and as the employee is not in service on that date, as such, the benefit of increment cannot be extended. Paragraphs 23 to 26 of the judgment are also reproduced hereinafter:-
"23. Historically Government of India Act 1919 by Sections 96-B(2) empowered the Secretary of State for India to make Rules regarding conditions of service of Government servants. In exercise of these powers, Fundamental Rules and Civil Service (CCA) Rules were made sometime in 1922. As mentioned earlier, Fundamental Rules, especially in relation to general conditions of service, like, pay, leave, deputation, retirement, dismissal, removal and suspension apply to all Government servants whose pay is debitable to civil estimates. Before the promulgation of Fundamental Rules, Government of India made various Rules and Regulations in relation to salary, leave, pension and travelling allowance of Government servants. These Rules/ Regulations were published by authority compendiously as Civil Service Regulations. After inauguration of the Constitution of India, though President of India promulgated different kinds of Rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India as well as Special Rules governing All India Services and Railway Servants, Civil Service Regulations continued to be applied by various departments in respect of conditions of service, if they are not inconsistent with the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or relevant Statutes. It is not denied before this Court that in all the Central Government Departments and Wings, Civil Service Regulations continued to be referred to and followed. There are as many as 1163 Articles or Regulations dealing with pay, allowance, leave and pension. Chapter-II contains definitions of terms like "Age" (Article 14), "Calendar Month" (Article 18), "Progressive Appointment" (Article 43) and the like.
24. As per Article 14, when an officer is required to retire on attaining a specified age, the day on which he attains that age is reckoned as non-working day and the officer must retire with effect from and including that day. Article 18 defines "Calendar Month" and also gives examples for reckoning the period of six months beginning on 28th February, 31st March, 1st April etc. The last day on which thirty days is completed is taken as the completion of the period of the Calendar Month. Regulation 43 defines "Progressive Appointment" to mean as an appointment the pay of which is progressive, that is, pay which, subject to the good behaviour of an officer, rises, by periodical increments, from a minimum to a maximum. Articles 151 to 154 deal with accrual of increment and it would be better to read Articles 151 to 153.
151. An increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned.
Exception.-An officer appointed in England by the Secretary of State for service in India receives the increment in his pay in accordance with the terms of his engagement.
152. A periodical increment should not be granted to an officer serving on Progressive pay, as a matter of course, or unless his conduct has been good. When an increment is withheld, the period for which it is withheld is at the discretion of the authority having power to withhold, who will also decide whether the postponement is or is not to have the effect of similarly postponing future increments. The authority having powers to withhold is, in the case of ministerial and menial officers, the head of the office, and in the case of other officers, the Local Government, which may delegate the powers to heads of departments or other supervising officers.
153 (a). A proposal to grant an increment of Progressive pay in advance of the due date should always be scrutinized with special jealousy: it is contrary to the principle of Progressive pay to grant an increments before it is due, and such a grant should not be recommended or allowed, excepting under circumstances which would justify a personal allowance to an officer whose pay is fixed, - that is to say, seldom if ever.
(b) The powers of the Government of India, of Local Governments and of subordinate authorities to grant a premature increment to an officer are subject to the limits upto which each such authority can raise the officer's remuneration.
25. Thus a person who gets progressive appointment would be entitled to a periodical rise in the pay subject to good behaviour and such increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned. That is to say, a Government servant would get and draw increment after completion of one year. If the day for payment of annual increment is first of January, a Government servant would be entitled for annual increment on 31st December of that year, but the same would accrue only from First January of next year if such Government servant continues to be in progressive appointment. The words "Progressive Appointment" are crucial in understanding the question as to whether a person who retires would be entitled for payment of annual increment in Progressive Pay.
26. As held by us when conditions of service are governed by Rules promulgated under proviso to Rule 309, unless there is some unoccupied area, the Statutory Rules alone are applicable. As per the "Pension Rules" Government Servants Pension is regulated by these Rules and therefore we are not referring to Articles 348A to Articles 531 of the CS Regulations which deal with "pension". We have referred to relevant Articles in CS Regulations dealing with increment only."
15. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has substantially followed the reasoning given by Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court to hold that as annual increment becomes payable on the date when the government servant was not in employment, therefore, the benefit of annual increment cannot be extended to him.
16. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has not accepted the reasoning assigned by the Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal (supra) and the summary dismissal of SLP by the Supreme Court against it has been held not to constitute any binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Reliance for such purposes is placed upon the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed and others Vs. State of Kerala and another, (2000) 6 SCC 359 followed in the case of Khoday Distilleries Limited and others Vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal, (2019) 4 SCC 376; State of Orissa and another Vs. Dhirendra Sunder Das and others, (2019) 6 SCC 270 and Union of India Vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421.
17. The other judgment relied upon by the respondents in support of their plea is of the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. G.C. Yadav (supra). The issue before the Delhi High Court was distinct and not in respect of payment of increment. The issue therein was with regard to grant of revised pay scale as per recommendations of Seventh Central Pay Commission Report which became applicable w.e.f. 1.1.2016. The respondent before the Delhi High Court had already retired on 31.12.2015 and, therefore, the revised pay scale as per Seventh Central Pay Commission Report was not extended to him. The Central Administrative Tribunal, however, allowed original application of the employee and granted benefit of revised pay scale against which the Union of India had preferred writ petition. Reliance was placed before Delhi High Court of the Supreme Court Judgment in S. Banerjee Vs. Union of India, 1989 Supplementary (2) SCC 486. The Division Bench distinguished the judgment in S. Banerjee (supra) on facts. It was noticed that the employee in S. Banerjee (supra) was in employment on the date when revised pay scale became applicable unlike the facts in the case of G.C. Yadav (supra). Claim for payment of revised scale was accordingly rejected. The judgment of Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal (supra) was also distinguished on facts for similar reasons.
18. This Court in P.P. Pandey (supra) after noticing the full bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court has proceeded to follow the view taken by the Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal (supra).
19. It is in the above divergent views of the High Courts that the issue needs to be decided by this Court.
20. Payment of salary and increment to a central government servant is regulated by the provisions of F.R., CSR and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Pay defined in F.R. 9(21) means the amount drawn monthly by a central government servant and includes the increment. A plain composite reading of applicable provisions leaves no ambiguity that annual increment is given to a government servant to enable him to discharge duties of the post and that pay and allowances are also attached to the post. Article 43 of the CSR defines progressive appointment to mean an appointment wherein the pay is progressive, subject to good behaviour of an officer. It connotes that pay rises, by periodical increments from a minimum to a maximum. The increment in case of progressive appointment is specified in Article 151 of the CSR to mean that increment accrues from the date following that on which it is earned. The scheme, taken cumulatively, clearly suggests that appointment of a central government servant is a progressive appointment and periodical increment in pay from a minimum to maximum is part of the pay structure. Article 151 of CSR contemplates that increment accrues from the day following which it is earned. This increment is not a matter of course but is dependent upon good conduct of the central government servant. It is, therefore, apparent that central government employee earns increment on the basis of his good conduct for specified period i.e. a year in case of annual increment. Increment in pay is thus an integral part of progressive appointment and accrues from the day following which it is earned.
21. There is a purpose for providing that increment earned accrues from the day following which it is earned. The grant of increment is not a matter of course and is dependent upon good conduct of the government servant for the entire year. It is, therefore but natural that good conduct must be observed for the entire year before the increment accrues. This is logical and in normal circumstances creates no difficulty for a central government servant.
22. Difficulty arises only when the central government servant also retires on the last day when he completes his yearly service required for grant of increment. Article 151 to 153 of the CSR explicitly provides that increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned. Going by the plain reading of the applicable provisions the benefit of annual increment would not be available to a government servant if he superannuates on 30th June since the increment became payable only on the 1st of July. It is on the basis of above reasoning that full bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court & Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected the claim for payment of increment to the government servant who retires on 30th of June. With utmost respects to the views expressed by the two Court's, I find myself unable to subscribe to it, for the reasons enumerated hereinafter.
23. Annual increment though is attached to the post & becomes payable on a day following which it is earned but the day on which increment accrues or becomes payable is not conclusive or determinative. In the statutory scheme governing progressive appointment increment becomes due for the services rendered over a year by the government 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 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.
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 of a year's service with good conduct and no other purpose can be culled out 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 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 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 part 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.
25. In view of the above deliberations and discussions, I find myself in absolute agreement with the view expressed on the issue by Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal (supra) as also the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra) and this Court in the case of P.P. Pandey (supra). The statutory rules cannot be read in a manner such that substantive rights earned by a central government employee under the Rules is denied to him. I, therefore, hold that a government servant retiring on 30th June would be entitled to benefit of increment falling due on 1st July on account of his good conduct for the requisite length of time i.e. one year, in a regime of progressive appointment. The petitioners', therefore, would be entitled to the grant of increment payable on 1st July 2019, notwithstanding their superannuation on 30th June, 2019. Orders impugned in this petition are consequently quashed. The respondents are directed to consider petitioners' case afresh in light of the above observations and directions within a period of two months from the date of services of the order. Writ petition, consequently succeeds and is allowed. Costs, however, are made easy.
Order Date :- 29.06.2021 Ranjeet Sahu