Balwinder Singh v. The State Of Punjab And Others
!"#" $% &'
'
) *
Versus
* *
+%
,) +'
*
+ *) + *)
- '
./ !"#"$%"%&'( '
)The petitioner, who has retired from the post of Assistant Sub Inspector from Punjab Police on 30.4.2021, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant one notional increment as on 1.5.2021 having completed one year service after grant of last increment and further prays that pensionary benefits after giving the aforesaid increment be ordered to be revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although as on the date of retirement i.e. 30.4.2021, the petitioner had already completed 12 months from the day when last increment had been granted, but the respondents have not granted such increment though Rule 4.7 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part - I clearly envisages for the same and increment is to be granted upon completion of 12 months of service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case of the petitioner is fully covered by judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.32598 of 2019
titled as Gurdev Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another decided on 16.3.2022 (Annexure P55) as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 titled as The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others Versus C.P. Mundinamani and others decided on 11.4.2023 (Annexure P56).
Notice of motion for 28.2.2024.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab, upon whom an advance copy of petition had already been served, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent5 State.
The State to file a reply on or before the next date of hearing.* % +
',
( -.
!
"
#
/ 0.
1
0 2
"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
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 Accountant5General, 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 & Ors. (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020).
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."
& +
2
/
/ 3
4 0
/ .
5
6
' (/ ' 0
'& /
.
+ *)
"7"#%"%4 Ali 8
9(: ; :< Whether Reportable Yes/No