Allowed

Shrawan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Mar 2024LPA/635/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired police officer denied annual increment because his increment date fell one day after superannuation. The Division Bench relied on the Supreme Court's Mundinamani decision holding such entitlement crystallises on completing a year's service, allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's dismissal and directed grant of the increment.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 10.07.2018 in W.P.(S) No. 6555 of 2017 set aside; respondents directed to grant annual increment to the writ petitioner.

Shrawan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 635 of 2018

¶2

Shrawan Kumar ... Appellant

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶6

Director General-cum-I.G. of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶7

Additional Director General-cum-I.G. of Police, Special Branch, Ranchi

¶8

Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Ranchi

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

For the Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG-IA ---

¶13

Order No. 14 Dated 18^th March, 2024

¶14

I.A. No. 1230 of 2019

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides.

¶16

This application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning a

¶17

delay of 81 days in filing the appeal.

¶18

Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in this application, the delay of 81 days which had occurred in filing this appeal is condoned and this I.A. is allowed and disposed of.

¶19

L.P.A. No. 635 of 2018

¶20

This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6555 of 2017 by which the prayer of the appellant/ writ petitioner for grant of annual increment for the period 01.07.2012 to 01.07.2013 has been rejected.

¶21

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that though the respondent State has taken a stand that the superannuation of the writ petitioner was on 30.06.2013 and due to a clerical error it has been mentioned as 01.07.2013, but since one year was completed from 01.07.2012, the writ petitioner had become eligible for grant of increment which fact has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ application. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to the case of Union of India and others versus P. Ayyamperumal in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 22283 of 2018 while submitting that in similar circumstances, it has been considered and benefit of increment has been given to the said petitioner.

¶22

¶23

Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned AC to AAG-IA has submitted that there has been a clerical error as the writ petitioner had superannuated on the last day of the month i.e. 30.06.2013, but instead the same has been mentioned as 01.07.2013 and since the increment of the writ petitioner fell due on 01.07.2013 and he had retired prior to the said date, the learned Single Judge had rightly appreciated the aforesaid while dismissing the writ application.

¶24

Briefly stated the facts reveal that the writ petitioner was appointed in the rank of Steno-ASI on 22.07.1975 and he was granted promotion during his service career and went up to the rank of Inspector of Police in January, 2013 and thereafter he superannuated on 30.06.2013 on attaining the age of 60 years. The increment which fell due to the writ petitioner was not extended to him by the respondent authorities for which representations were submitted, but the same evoked no response and ultimately the writ petitioner had to move this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6555 of 2017 which was dismissed on 10.07.2018 and which is the order impugned to the present appeal.

¶25

Specific stand has been taken by the respondent State that the increment of the petitioner fell due on 01.07.2013, but on account of a clerical error, his date of superannuation was shown to be 01.07.2013 instead of 30.06.2013. In this context we may refer to the case of Union of India and others versus P. Ayyamperumal (Supra) wherein consideration was made to the fact that the said petitioners had completed one full year of service on their date of retirement though that the date of increment fell on the next day of retirement. The view taken by the High Court of Madras that such persons cannot be deprived of the annual increment had been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director (Admn. And HR), KPTCL and others versus C.P. Mundinamani and others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 401 and the relevant reads as follows:-

¶26

“... 20. 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

¶27

3. 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 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 v. Pavithran (O.P.(CAT) No. 111/2020 decided on 22.11.2022) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Hari Prakash v. State of Himachal Pradesh (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020).

¶28

21. 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 taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ...”

¶29

In view of the aforesaid facts and the case of the writ petitioner appears to be covered by the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, his entitlement for annual increment therefore cannot be disputed and/or being deprived by the concerned respondents only on account of the

¶30

¶31

fact that his eligibility for being granted annual increment fell on the next day of his superannuation.

¶32

We in view of the aforesaid facts, set aside the order dated 10.07.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6555 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge with a further direction to the respondent authorities to grant the writ petitioner the annual increment as the writ petitioner was entitled to and on the basis of what we have discussed above.

¶33

This appeal stands allowed.

¶34

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶35

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶36

Shrawan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrawan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ssp Enterprises Represented Thro One of Its Partners Pradeep Kumar Pasari Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary Department of Mines and Geology

M/S Ssp Enterprises Represented Thro One of Its Partners Pradeep Kumar Pasari Vs the State of Jahrkhand Thro the Secretary Department of Mines and Geology

M/S MD Zafar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro Its Pr Secretary Health Education and Family Welfare Department

M/S N K Enterprises Thro Its Proprietor Lal Chandra Kishore Nath Shahdeo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Govind Pramanik Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

M/S R P Singh Stone Works Vs the State of Jharkhand