[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
Mr. Akshay Latwal vs Unknown on 7 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:5826-DB
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSB/332/2020
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
1. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
2. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned Central
Government Standing Counsel for the
Union of India.
3. By means of this writ petition,
petitioner has sought the following
relief:-
(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondents to
grant one notional increment with effect
from 1st July, 2019 for the complete service
rendered by the petitioner from 1st July,
2018 to 30th June, 2019 and
consequentially re-fix the pensionary
benefits.
(ii) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the
nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to grant arrears of pensionary
benefits from the date of retirement of the
petitioner along with interest @ 18% per
annum till the date of payment.
4. It is not in dispute that petitioner
retired from the post of Deputy Inspector
General from Border Security Force on
30.06.2019. As per the averments made
in the supplementary affidavit dated
03.07.2025, one annual increment was
due to petitioner on 1st July, 2019,
however, it was not granted to him on
the ground that he retired a day early
i.e. 30.06.2019.
2025:UHC:5826-DB
5. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of “Director (Administration and
Human Resources) KPTCL & others Vs.
C.P. Mundinamani & others”, reported in
(2023) 14 SCC 411, while dealing with
an identical issue, approved the
judgment rendered by Allahabad High
Court in the case of “Nand Vijay Singh &
others Vs. Union of India & others” and
held that annual increment, which a
Government Servant has earned for the
services rendered over a year subject to
his good behaviour, cannot be denied
only on the ground that he retired one
day before the date when it became
payable. Relevant extract of the said
judgment is reproduced below:
“15. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the
appellants that the annual increment is in the form of incentive
and to encourage an employee to perform well and therefore,
once he is not in service, there is no question of grant of
annual increment is concerned, the aforesaid has no
substance. In a given case, it may happen that the employee
earns the increment three days before his date of
superannuation and therefore, even according to Regulation
40(1) increment is accrued on the next day in that case also
such an employee would not have one-year service thereafter.
It is to be noted that increment is earned on one-year past
service rendered in a timescale. Therefore, the aforesaid
submission is not to be accepted.
16. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the
appellants that as the increment has accrued on the next day
on which it is earned and therefore, even in a case where an
employee has earned the increment one day prior to his
retirement but he is not in service the day on which the
increment is accrued is concerned, while considering the
aforesaid issue, the object and purpose of grant of annual
increment is required to be considered.
17. A government servant is granted the annual
increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering
one-year service. Increments are given annually to officers
with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a
measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore,
the increment is earned for rendering service with good
conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a
government servant has rendered service for a specified 2
2024:UHC:10098-DB period with good conduct, in a timescale,
2025:UHC:5826-DB
he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that
he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified
period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is
entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the
eventuality of having served for a specified period (one year)
with good conduct efficiently. Merely because the government
servant has retired on the very next day, how can he be denied
the annual increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to
for rendering the service with good conduct and efficiency in
the preceding one year.
18. In Gopal Singh [Gopal Singh v. Union of India, 2020
SCC OnLine Del 2640] (sic Nand Vijay Singh [Nand Vijay Singh v.
Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine All 1090] ) in paras 20, 23 and
24, the Delhi (sic Allahabad) High Court has observed and held
as under : (Nand Vijay Singh case [Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of
India, 2021 SCC OnLine All 1090] , SCC OnLine All)“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.
***
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
2025:UHC:5826-DB
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. 3
2024:UHC:10098-DB
24. … 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.”
19. The Allahabad High Court in Nand Vijay Singh [Nand Vijay
Singh v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine All 1090] while
dealing with the same issue has observed and held in para 24
as under : (SCC OnLine All)
“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
2025:UHC:5826-DB
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 4 2024:UHC:10098-DB 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.”
20. Similar view has also been expressed by different High
Courts, namely, the Gujarat [State of Gujarat v. Takhatsinh
Udesinh Songara, 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 2522] High Court, the
Madhya Pradesh [Yogendra Singh Bhadauria v. State of M.P.,
2020 SCC OnLine MP 4654] High Court, the Orissa [Arun Kumar
Biswal v. State of Odisha, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 2368] High
Court and the Madras [P. Ayyamperumal v. Central
Administrative Tribunal, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 37963] 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 efficiency 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 [Principal Accountant-General, A.P. v. C. Subba Rao,
2005 SCC OnLine AP 47] 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.
21. In the present case the word “accrue” should be
2025:UHC:5826-DB
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.
22. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the
Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal [P. Ayyamperumal v.
Central Administrative Tribunal, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 37963] ;
the Delhi High Court in Gopal Singh [Gopal Singh v. Union of
India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2640] ; the Allahabad High Court in
Nand Vijay Singh [Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India, 2021 SCC
OnLine All 1090] ; the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Yogendra
Singh Bhadauria [Yogendra Singh Bhadauria v. State of M.P.,
2020 SCC OnLine MP 4654] ; the Orissa High Court in Arun
Kumar Biswal [Arun Kumar Biswal v. State of Odisha, 2021 SCC
OnLine Ori 2368] ; and the Gujarat High Court in Takhatsinh
Udesinh Songara [State of Gujarat v. Takhatsinh Udesinh
Songara, 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 2522] . We do not approve the
contrary view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Principal Accountant-General, A.P. [Principal
Accountant-General, A.P. v. C. Subba Rao, 2005 SCC OnLine AP
47] and the decisions of the Kerala High Court in Union of India
v. Pavithran K. [Union of India v. Pavithran K., 2022 SCC OnLine
Ker 5922] and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Hari Prakash
v. State of H.P. [Hari Prakash v. State 5 2024:UHC:10098-DB of
H.P., 2020 SCC OnLine HP 2362].”
6. It is the contention of petitioner
that he is entitled to notional increment
w.e.f. 1st July, 2019 on account of
completing satisfactory service and his
pensionary benefits be also re-fixed
accordingly. Learned counsel for
petitioner has relied upon a judgment
dated 31.12.2024 rendered by this Court
in WPSB No. 779 of 2024. He submits
that since identical issue has been
decided in the said judgment, therefore,
present writ petition deserves to be
decided in terms of the said judgment.
7. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel
for Union of India also does not dispute
the said submission and he concedes
that identical issue was decided in WPSS
No. 779 of 2024.
2025:UHC:5826-DB
8. In view of consensus between the
parties that similar controversy has been
decided in the aforesaid judgment, the
present writ petition is also decided in
terms of judgment dated 31.12.2024
rendered in WPSS No. 779 of 2024.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
07.07.2025
Aswal
NITI RAJ SINGH
Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b
ASWAL
08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF
4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
Date: 2025.07.08 23:02:11 -07’00’
[ad_2]
Source link