Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/2539/2024 of JAYSHREE PURANIK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2539 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
JAYSHREE PURANIK W/O LAXMIKANT PURANIK, AGEDABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. ASST. TEACHERGOVT GIRLS MIDDLE SCHOOL SANKUL RADHABAIMADHYAMIK VIDHYALAYA, DEWAS, R/O 602-D BLOCKBICHOLI MARDANA SHRIJI HEIGHTS INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ANAND AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION,DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DISTRICTDEWAS, TEHSIL SQUARE NEAR LAL GATE DEWAS(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DISTRICT DEWAS,TEHSIL SQUARE, NEAR LAL GATE, DEWAS(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHREY RAJ SAXENA - ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL FORSTATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESHMAHADEV SUKHDEVE1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking release of lastSigning time: 2/2/20246:24:12 PM
increment which became due to him on 30.06.2018.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stoodretired from service on 30.06.2018. The respondents have denied him theincrement which was payable w.e.f. 01.07.2018 i.e. after the date of hisretirement. Earlier, this issue came up for consideration before this Court in thecase of Rajendra Prasad TiwariV/s. State of M.P.(W.P. No.18030/2019decided on 03.12.2019) whereby the petition was allowed by directing therespondents/State to extend benefit of increment fell due on 1.7.2015 andaccordingly the retiral dues be revised and paid. The aforesaid order waschallenged by the State of M.P. by way of W.A. No.363/2020 and vide orderdated 06.03.2020 the same has been dismissed.
3. Similar orders were passed by different High Courts and one of thematters travelled up to the Supreme Court in the case of The Director (Admn.and H.R.) KPTCL & othersV/s. C.P. Mundinamani & others(CivilAppeal No.2471/2023 recently decided on 11.04.2023) and the apex Courthas upheld the decision of the High Court whereby direction was given to grantone annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day oftheir service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date ofretirement with good behaviour and efficiently.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State, submits that i n W.A. No.717/2016(State of M.P. & othersV/s. Arun KumarShrivastava) similar issue came up for consideration before the Division Benchof this Court and vide order dated 10.07.2017 the Division Bench allowed thewrit appeal and quashed the order passed by the writ Court and dismissed the Signature Not Verifiedwrit petition. This judgment was not brought to the knowledge of the Bench inSigned by: SHAILESHMAHADEV SUKHDEVESigning time: 2/2/2024the case of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari (supra). Hence, order passed in W.A.6:24:12 PM
No.717/2016 is liable to be followed and this writ petition be dismissed.
5. Heard.
6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State is right in submitting that the earlier judgment shall prevail, but in the presentcase the apex has now decided the issue which is binding on High Court.Hence, the issue is no more res integra. Para 6.7 and 7 of the judgment passedby the apex Court in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL (supra)are reproduced below: -
"6.7 Similar view has also been expressed by different HighCourts, namely, the Gujarat High Court, the Madhya Pradesh HighCourt, the Orissa High Court and the Madras High Court. As observedhereinabove, to interpret Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations in themanner in which the appellants have understood and/or interpretatedwould lead to arbitrariness and denying a government servant thebenefit of annual increment which he has already earned whilerendering specified period of service with good conduct and efficientlyin the last preceding year. It would be punishing a person for no fault ofhim. As observed herein above, the increment can be withheld only byway of punishment or he has not performed the duty efficiently. Anyinterpretation which would lead to arbitrariness and/orunreasonableness should be avoided. If the interpretation as suggestedon behalf of the appellants and the view taken by the Full Bench of theAndhra Pradesh High Court is accepted, in that case it wouldtantamount to denying a government servant the annual incrementwhich he has earned for the services he has rendered over a year subjectSignature Not Verifiedto his good behaviour. The entitlement to receive increment thereforeSigned by: SHAILESHMAHADEV SUKHDEVESigning time: 2/2/2024crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of6:24:12 PM
service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day.In the present case the word accrue should be understood liberally andwould mean payable on the succeeding day. Any contrary view wouldlead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness and denying a governmentservant legitimate one annual increment though he is entitled to forrendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficientlyand therefore, such a narrow interpretation should be avoided. We arein complete agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court inthe case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi High Court in the case ofGopal Singh (supra); the Allahabad High Court in the case of NandVijay Singh (supra); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case ofYogendra Singh Bhadauria (supra); the Orissa High Court in the case ofAFR Arun Kumar Biswal (supra); and the Gujarat High Court in the caseof Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra). We do not approve the contraryview taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in thecase of Principal Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh (supra) and thedecisions 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 theHimachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Hari Prakash Vs. State ofHimachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020).
7 . In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theDivision Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants togrant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earnedon the last day of their service for rendering their services precedingone year from the date of retirement with good behaviour andefficiently. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by theDivision Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the presentSignature Not VerifiedSigned by: SHAILESHMAHADEV SUKHDEVEappeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However,Signing time: 2/2/20246:24:12 PMin the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
7. In view of the above, this petition deserves to be and is herebyallowed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of one annualincrement which fell due on 01.07.2018 to the petitioner and also to revise hisretiral dues and be paid to him. Let the whole exercise be completed within 60days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
SS/-
(PRANAY VERMA)JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESHMAHADEV SUKHDEVESigning time: 2/2/20246:24:12 PM