RATHOD BHANUBHAI MAFATBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The factual matrix in the present case is that the petitioner retired from the service on 30/6/2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had rendered one full year of service from 1/7/2019 to 30/6/2020 before his retirement and therefore, he was entitled to get the benefit of annual increment for the said period of service. That as per the policy of Government, the said increment falls due on 1/7/2020. However, as the petitioner had retired from service on 30/6/2020, the petitioner was not granted the said benefit of annual increment for the said period. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application.

(3.) Learned advocate Ms. Archita Prajapati appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the issue with respect to grant of increment after retirement has now been settled in the decisions by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. She submits that in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara and anr., being Letters Patent Appeal No.868 of 2021 decided on 27/4/2022, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the government servant is entitled to increment becoming payable on 1st July and the retirement of the government servant on the day prior to the increment becoming payable is only fortuitous circumstance. She submits that the said judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of preferring Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 26295 of 2022 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the Special Leave Petition since the order of the Division Bench was complied with by the State Government and the issue was kept upon as the issue was at large in other matters pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. She further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and ors. vs. C. P. Mundinamani and ors. being Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 by its judgment dtd. 11/4/2023, has upheld the view of the Division Bench of this Court in Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra). It has been held that 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, would be arbitrary and unreasonable. It was held that the entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallizes when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day. It was further held that 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 that for rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiently and therefore, such a narrow interpretation should be avoided. She further submits that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Prahladbhai Haribhai Patel and ors . being Letters Patent Appeal No.277 of 2023 and connected appeals decided on 19/4/2023, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL [supra] has dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeals involving the same issue.