# Shri Pal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 419
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-01
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 13858 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shri-pal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51820
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 -
Annual Increment - Retirement - Notional
Increment - Article 14 - Pensionary
Benefits
The petitioner, Shri Pal, a retired Clerk from
Nagar Nigam, Meerut, challenged the Nagar
Ayukt's order dated 28.12.2019, denying his
annual increment for the period 01.07.2018 to
30.06.2019, due on 01.07.2019, post-retirement
on 30.06.2019, citing no government order or
rule permitting post-retirement increments.
Held: (1) The petition was allowed with costs of
Rs. 10,000/-. (2) The impugned order was
quashed as contrary to Director (Admn. HR)
KPTCL Vs C.P. Mundinamani, which held that
denying an increment earned for a year's
satisfactory service due to retirement on 30.06
before the increment date (01.07) is arbitrary
and violates Article 14. (3) The petitioner,
having completed a full year of service, was
entitled to a notional increment for pensionary
benefits. (4) A mandamus was issued to grant
the increment notionally from 01.07.2019,
revise the pension, and pay arrears within eight
weeks with 6% interest for delays. (5) The
Nagar Ayukt's reliance on government orders
over judicial precedents was disapproved,
cautioning against pedantic adherence to rules
conflicting with court rulings. (6) The Nagar
Ayukt's failure to justify the order and improper
affidavit verification were criticized.

List of Cases cited:

1.Director (Admn. HR) KPTCL & ors. Vs C.P.
Mundinamani & ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401;
P. Ayyamperumal Vs The Registrar, Central
Administrative Tribunal & ors., Writ Petition No.
15732 of 2017 (Madras HC, 15.09.2017);

## Text

_Characters 0–39,817 of 40,302. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39817 for what follows._

4 All. Shri Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
419
service. This part of the petitioner's claim
is, therefore, also untenable.

30. In the circumstances, this Court is
of the opinion that no mandamus can be
issued to the respondents either to consider
the petitioner's claim for compassionate
appointment or for the grant of family
pension on account of her deceased father's
services

31. In the result, this writ petition fails
and is dismissed.

32. There shall be no order as to costs.

33. Let this order be communicated to
the Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation
Limited, Lucknow by the the Registrar
(Compliance) with the remark that he will
carry out the direction in paragraph No.13
of this judgment.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 419
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 13858 of 2023

Shri Pal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, Si Rajesh
Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pankaj Srivastava

Civil Law - U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 -
Annual Increment - Retirement - Notional
Increment - Article 14 - Pensionary
Benefits
The petitioner, Shri Pal, a retired Clerk from
Nagar Nigam, Meerut, challenged the Nagar
Ayukt's order dated 28.12.2019, denying his
annual increment for the period 01.07.2018 to
30.06.2019, due on 01.07.2019, post-retirement
on 30.06.2019, citing no government order or
rule permitting post-retirement increments.
Held: (1) The petition was allowed with costs of
Rs. 10,000/-. (2) The impugned order was
quashed as contrary to Director (Admn. HR)
KPTCL Vs C.P. Mundinamani, which held that
denying an increment earned for a year's
satisfactory service due to retirement on 30.06
before the increment date (01.07) is arbitrary
and violates Article 14. (3) The petitioner,
having completed a full year of service, was
entitled to a notional increment for pensionary
benefits. (4) A mandamus was issued to grant
the increment notionally from 01.07.2019,
revise the pension, and pay arrears within eight
weeks with 6% interest for delays. (5) The
Nagar Ayukt's reliance on government orders
over judicial precedents was disapproved,
cautioning against pedantic adherence to rules
conflicting with court rulings. (6) The Nagar
Ayukt's failure to justify the order and improper
affidavit verification were criticized.

List of Cases cited:

1.Director (Admn. HR) KPTCL & ors. Vs C.P.
Mundinamani & ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401;
P. Ayyamperumal Vs The Registrar, Central
Administrative Tribunal & ors., Writ Petition No.
15732 of 2017 (Madras HC, 15.09.2017);

2. St. of Tamil Nadu Vs M. Balasubramaniam,
CDJ 2012 MHC 6525;

3. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Shiv Balak & ors., Writ-A No.
14527 of 2022 (Allahabad HC, 15.12.2022);

4. Gopal Singh Vs U.O.I., Writ Petition (C) No.
10509/2019 (Delhi HC, 23.01.2020);

5. Nand Vijay Singh Vs U.O.I., Writ A No.
13299/2020 (Allahabad HC, 29.06.2021);

6. Yogendra Singh Bhadauria Vs St. of Madhya
Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh HC);
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. Arun Kumar Biswal Vs St. of Odisha, Writ
Petition
No.
17715/2020
(Orissa
HC,
30.07.2021);

8. St. of Gujarat Vs Takhatsinh Udesinh
Songara, Letters Patent Appeal No. 868/2021
(Gujarat HC);

9. Principal Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh
(Andhra Pradesh HC, Full Bench);

10. U.O.I. Vs Pavithran, O.P. (CAT) No.
111/2020 (Kerala HC, 22.11.2022); Hari Prakash
Vs St. of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No. 2503/2016
(Himachal Pradesh HC, 06.11.2020).

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed
against the order dated 28.12.2019 passed
by the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut
declining to grant the petitioner annual
increment for the period 1st July, 2018 to
30th June, 2019. The petitioner prays that a
mandamus be issued to the respondentNagar Nigam to pay his due increment for
the period 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019,
payable on 01.07.2019.

2. When this petition came up for
admission on 22.08.2023, this Court passed
the following order:

"The grievance of the petitioner
is that he retired on 30.06.2019. He has
been
denied
his
increments
from
01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019, which was due
on 01.07.2018, The petitioner's claim has
been rejected by the order impugned dated
28.12.2019 passed by the Nagar Aayukt,
Nagar Nigam, Meerut.

The Nagar Aayukt, Nagar Nigam,
Meerut will file an affidavit, showing cause
why his order dated 28.12.2019 be not
quashed being prima facie in the teeth of
holding of the Supreme Court in Director
(Admn. HR) KPTCL and others v. C.P.
Mundinamani and others, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 401.

The affidavit shall be filed within
ten days indicating how he has denied the
petitioner's increments in the teeth of the
holding of the Supreme Court in Re: C.P.
Mundinamani (supra).

Lay this writ petition as fresh on
04.09.2023.

Let this order be communicated
to the Nagar Aayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut
by the Registrar (Compliance) within 48
hours."

3. On the next date, that is
04.09.2023, the following order was made
which effectively granted time to the Nagar
Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut to comply
with the order dated 22.08.2023 and show
cause why the order impugned be not held
contrary to the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Director (Admn. HR)
KPTCL
and
others
v.
C.P.
Mundinamani and others, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 401:

"This matter was heard on
22.08.2023 and order of date recorded.

Today when the matter is called
on, no one is present on behalf of the
petitioner and the private respondents.

Mr. Yashwant Singh, learned
Counsel is present on behalf of the State.

This matter is adjourned as fresh
to 14.09.2023.

In the meantime, the order dated
22.08.2023 shall be complied with and the
Registrar (Compliance) shall submit a
report regarding service of the order dated
22.08.2023. "

4. Since, there was no affidavit filed
by 04.09.2023, while adjourning the matter,
this Court called for a report from the
Registrar (Compliance) in the matter.
4 All. Shri Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
421

5. The matter next came up on
14.09.2023, when this Court recorded the
following order which also makes a
verbatim reference to the report of the
Registrar (Compliance):

"Perused
the
report
dated
13.09.2023 submitted by the Registrar
(Compliance) and the office report dated
14.09.2023. The relevant part of the report
submitted in compliance with this Court's
order dated 04.09.2023 and in turn, the
earlier order dated 22.08.2023, reads:

As per the direction contained in
Hon'ble Court's order dated 22.08.2023
(copy at flag 'A'), the order dated
22.08.2023 was duly communicated to the
Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut,
Through, The District Magistrate, Meerut
for ensuring strict compliance, via email
and Speed Post as well along-with D.O.
letter
No.
7909/RC
(Civil)
dated
24.08.2023 (copy at flag 'B'). The email
receipt and Speed Post Track regarding the
communication
of
the
order
dated
22.08.2023 is enclosed herewith (flag 'C')
for Hon'ble Court's kind perusal.

The District Magistrate, Meerut,
vide
his
letter
No.
3478/O.S.D.-
Camp/2023 dated 12.09.2023 (flag 'D') has
submitted a report mentioning that the
aforesaid Hon'ble Court's order dated
22.08.2023, has been communicated to the
Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut in due
course.

Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned
Counsel for respondent No. 4, has
appeared via video conferencing, but, due
to slow internet speed, his voice could not
been heard. Mr. Srivastava, however,
conveyed through a text message that this
matter may be taken up in the next week.

Lay as fresh on 28.09.2023, by
which time the requisite personal affidavit
shall be filed. "

6. A reading of the order dated
14.09.2023
shows
that
Mr.
Pankaj
Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Nagar Nigam, again sought
time in the matter praying that it may be
taken up in the next week. It was then
posted on 28.09.2023 with a direction that
by the said date the requisite personal
affidavit (of the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar
Nigam, Meerut) shall be filed.

7. When the matter was taken up on
the fourth occasion on 03.10.2023, a
reconstructed copy of the affidavit of
compliance was placed on record by Mr.
Pankaj Srivastava. It was accepted on
record and treated as the original. A
statement was made by Mr. Pankaj
Srivastava that he does not want to file any
further
affidavit
on
behalf
of
the
respondents. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner stated that he does not wish to
file a rejoinder. Accordingly, this petition
was admitted to hearing which proceeded
forthwith. Judgment was reserved.

8. Heard Mr. Agnihotri Kumar
Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3
and 4 and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no.1.

9. The petitioner was appointed a
Clerk in the one time Municipality of
Meerut, since upgraded to a Nagar Nigam.
The petitioner says that he discharged his
duties honestly and to the best of his
abilities throughout his career, retiring from
service on 30.06.2019. The petitioner says
that he attained the age of superannuation
on 03.06.2019 and served with a notice of
retirement dated 26.02.2019 which said that
he would retire on 30.06.2019. The date of
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
retirement is apparently a little later than
the petitioner's superannuation, going by
the rule providing for retirement on the last
day of the month.

10. The petitioner says that upon
receipt of the notice of retirement he
submitted an application to the Nagar
Ayukt,
received
by
his
office
on
17.05.2019, requesting that he may be paid
his increment for the period 01.07.2018 to
30.06.2019. All his retirement dues were
paid except his annual increment for the
period 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019. In these
circumstances, the petitioner moved this
Court by means of Writ-A No. 18405 of
2019 with a prayer that going by the settled
law, to which allusion would shortly be
made,
the
respondent-Nagar
Ayuktbe
directed to pay the petitioner's increment
for the period 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019.

11. This Court, upon hearing learned
Counsel for the petitioner, passed an order
on 19.11.2019, disposing of Writ-A No.
18405 of 2019 in terms of directions that
would be evident from the order, quoted in
extenso:

"Petitioner submits that he is
entitled to notional increment for the period
1.7.2018 to 30.6.2019, in light of the
judgment of the Madras High Court dated
15.9.2017
passed
in
Writ
Petition
No.15732 of 2017 (P. Ayyamperumal Vs.
The
Registrar,
Central
Administrative
Tribunal and others), against which a
special leave petition filed before the
Supreme Court has been rejected on 23rd
July, 2018. It is stated that denial of annual
increment to the petitioner, in the facts and
circumstances, is wholly arbitrary. It is also
urged that various representation made in
that regard have not been bestowed any
consideration and hence this writ petition.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
submits that claim of petitioner shall be
examined in accordance with law by the
authority concerned.

In the facts and circumstances,
noticed above, this writ petition stands
disposed of with a direction upon the
respondent no.2 to accord consideration to
petitioner's claim for grant of notional
increment w.e.f. 1.7.2018 to 30.6.2019,
keeping in view the law laid down in the
matter, by passing a reasoned order, within
a period of two months from the date of
presentation of certified copy of this order.
"

12. The Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam,
Meerut, one Arvind Kumar Chaurasia,
proceeded
to
pass
an
order
dated
28.12.2019, that is to say, the impugned
order rejecting the petitioner's claim, on
ground that the petitioner had retired from
service on 30.06.2019 whereas increments
are payable to employees who are in
service. After retirement from service, there
is no provision for the award of increment.
This is particularly so as no Government
Order has been issued by the Government
of Uttar Pradesh. It has also been said in
the impugned order, most inappropriately,
that since there is no Rule or Government
Order authorising the payment of increment
after retirement, the petitioner is not
entitled to it. The increment for the period
01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019 would fall due on
01.07.2019 and the petitioner had retired a
day earlier.

13. The Madras High Court, in a
Bench decision of their Lordships in P.
Ayammperumal
v.
The
Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal and
others in Writ Petition No. 15732 of 2017
decided on 15.09.2017, to which reference
was made in this Court's order dated
4 All. Shri Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
423
19.11.2019 passed in Writ-A No. 18405 of
2019, had squarely dealt with the issue in a
writ petition arising out of an order passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

14. In P. Ayammperumal (supra),
the short facts were that the petitioner had
joined the Indian Revenue Service in the
Customs and Excise Department in the year
1982 and retired as the Additional Director
General, Chennai on 30.06.2013 upon
attaining the age of superannuation. The
6th Pay Commission came in and the
Central Government fixed 1st of July as the
date on which increment for all employees
would be payable, amending Rule 10 of the
Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
2008. It was in view of the said amendment
that the petitioner was denied his last
increment though he had completed a full
year in service from 01.07.2012 to
30.06.2013. The petitioner moved the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras
Bench which rejected the petitioner's claim
going by the book, like the Nagar
Ayukthere, that the increment fell due on
the 1st of July and since the petitioner had
retired a day prior to that date, he was not
entitled. This order was challenged before
the Madras High Court. The Division
Bench allowed the writ petition referring to
an earlier judgment of the High Court in
State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its
Secretary
to
Government,
Finance
Department
and
others
v.
M.
Balasubramaniam, CDJ 2012 MHC
6525, holding:

"6.In the case on hand, the
petitioner got retired on 30.06.2013.

As per the Central Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the increment
has to be given only on 01.07.2013, but he
had been superannuated on 30.06.2013
itself. The judgment referred to by the
petitioner in State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by
its Secretary to Government, Finance
Department
and
others
v.
M.Balasubramaniam, reported in CDJ
2012 MHC 6525, was passed under similar
circumstances on 20.09.2012, wherein this
Court confirmed the order passed in
W.P.No.8440 of 2011 allowing the writ
petition
filed
by
the
employee,
by
observing that the employee had completed
one full year of service from 01.04.2002 to
31.03.2003, which entitled him to the
benefit of increment which accrued to him
during that period.

7. The petitioner herein had
completed one full year service as on
30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on
01.07.2013, on which date he was not in
service. In view of the above judgment of
this Court, naturally he has to be treated as
having completed one full year of service,
service,
though
though
the date
of
increment falls on the next day of his
retirement. Applying the said judgment to
the present case, the writ petition is allowed
and the impugned order passed by the first
respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is
quashed. The petitioner shall be given one
notional increment for the period from
01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has
completed one full year of service, though
his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the
purpose of pensionary benefits and not for
any other purpose. No costs."

15. A Special Leave Petition, carried
against the said decision, was dismissed by
the Supreme Court on 23rd July, 2018. This
judgment of the Madras High Court,
against which Special Leave had been
declined by the Supreme Court, was clearly
referred to by the learned Single Judge in
his order dated 19.11.2019 passed in WritA No. 18405 of 2019, when his Lordship
issued a direction to the Nagar Ayuktto
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consider the petitioner's claim for the grant
of notional increment, with effect from
01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019. Now, the position
of the law was well settled by time P.
Ayammperumal was decided and that
should have put an end to the controversy.

16. It appears that the issue arose before
the Bombay High Court, the Delhi High
Court and the Armed Forces Tribunal,
Regional Bench, Lucknow, besides the
Madras High Court who were unanimous in
saying that the increment earned up to 30th
June of a given year but falling due under the
rules on 1st of July is already earned and has
to be paid to the retired employee notionally,
to be accounted towards the reckoning of his
pension.

17. The issue arose before a Division
Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ
petitions entitled Writ-A No. 14527 of 2022,
Union of India and 3 others v. Shiv Balak and
2 others decided on 15.12.2022 preferred by
the Union of India from various judgments of
the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
challenging similar orders, directing the grant
of notional increment that had been earned up
to the 30th of June of a particular year
involved and where the employees had
retired on 30th June before the increment
actually fell due on the 1st of July. A
Division Bench of this Court formulated the
question involved in paragraph no. 2 of the
judgement in Shiv Balak (supra) thus:

"The short question involved in
this bunch of writ petitions is as under:

"Whether employees who retired
on 30th June are entitled to the last annual
increment made effective from on 1st
July?""

18. After noticing the consistent
opinion of the Madras High Court, the
Bombay High Court, the Delhi High Court
and the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional
Bench, Lucknow, all affirmed by the
Supreme Court, their Lordships held:

"18. In view of the facts and legal
position
noted
above,
since
the
controversy/question
involved
in
the
present writ petitions is squarely covered
by
the
judgments/orders
of
Hon'ble
Supreme Court affirming the judgment of
Madras High Court, Bombay High Court,
Delhi High Court and the Armed Forces
Tribunal,
Regional
Bench,
Lucknow,
therefore, all the Writ Petitions deserve to
be dismissed and the impugned orders of
the Tribunal deserve to be affirmed.

20. For all the reasons aforestated
all the writ petitions are dismissed and it is
held that the employees who retired on 30th
June are entitled to the last increment made
effective on 1st July. "

19. Still later, the issue again arose
before
the
Supreme
Court
in
C.P.
Mundinamani
(supra)
where
the
employers, who had joined a similar issue
with employees, lost before the Division
Bench of the Karnataka High Court and
moved the Supreme Court by Special
Leave.

20. In C.P. Mundinamani, the facts
show that the employees of the Karnataka
Power Transmission Corporation Limited,
the writ petitioners-respondents in that
case, had retired a day before the annual
increment accrued in accordance with
Regulation
40(1)
of
the
Karnataka
Electricity
Board
Employees
Service
Regulations, 1977. The said Regulation
made provision that an increment earned
would accrue on the day following and
since the employees in that case had retired
on the day it was earned, the Karnataka
4 All. Shri Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
425
Power Transmission Corporation Limited,
going by the book, denied the increment
that the retiring employees had earned up to
the last day of their service.

21. Their Lordships of the Supreme
Court,
as
the
report
in
C.P.
Mundinamani would show, formulated
the following question:

"13. The short question which is
posed for the consideration of this Court
is whether an employee who has earned
the annual increment is entitled to the
same despite the fact that he has retired
on the very next day of earning the
increment?"

22. In answering the question, their
Lordships
surveyed
the
divergent
opinions of the Full Bench of the Andhra
Pradesh
High
Court,
the
Himachal
Pradesh High Court and the Kerala High
Court, that would support the employer's
contention and the other views favouring
the employees expressed by the Madras
High Court, the Delhi High Court, this
Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court,
the Orissa High Court and the Gujarat
High Court, and held:

"15. It is the case on behalf of
the appellants that the word used in
Regulation 40(1) is that an increment
accrues from the day following that on
which it is earned and in the present case
the increment accrued on the day when
they retired and therefore, on that day
they were not in service and therefore,
not entitled to the annual increment
which they might have earned one day
earlier. It is also the case on behalf of the
appellants that as the increment is in the
form of incentive and therefore, when the
employees are not in service there is no
question of granting them any annual
increment which as such is in the form of
incentive.

16. At this stage, it is required to
be noted that there are divergent views of
various High Courts on the issue involved.
The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court, the Himachal Pradesh High
Court and the Kerala High Court have
taken a contrary view and have taken the
view canvassed on behalf of the appellants.
On the other hand, the Madras High Court
in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra);
the Delhi high Court in the case of Gopal
Singh v. Union of India (Writ Petition (C)
No. 10509/2019 decided on 23.01.2020);
the Allahabad High Court in the case of
Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India (Writ A
No. 13299/2020 decided on 29.06.2021);
the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case
of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria v. State of
Madhya Pradesh; the Orissa High Court in
the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal v.
State of Odisha (Writ Petition No.
17715/2020 decided on 30.07.2021); and
the Gujarat High Court in the case of State
of Gujarat v. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara
(Letters Patent Appeal No. 868/2021) have
taken a divergent view than the view taken
by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court and have taken the view that
once an employee has earned the increment
on completing one year service he cannot
be denied the benefit of such annual
increment on his attaining the age of
superannuation and/or the day of retirement
on the very next day.

17. 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
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
happen that the employee earns the
increment three days before his date of
superannuation
and
therefore,
even
according
to
the
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 time scale. Therefore,
the aforesaid submission is not to be
accepted.

18. 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. 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 period with good conduct, in
a time scale, 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 efficiently in the
preceding one year. In the case of Gopal
Singh (supra) in paragraphs 20, 23 and 24,
the Delhi High Court has observed and held
as under:-

(para 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 l.e. a year in
4 All. Shri Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
427
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."

(para 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 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."

(para 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
the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra) while
dealing with the same issue has observed
and held in paragraph 24 as under: -

"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 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
428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

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 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
4 All. Shri Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
429
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)."

23. It is in view of the law laid down
by
the
supreme
Court
in
C.P.
Mundinamani that this Court required the
Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut to file
an affidavit of compliance showing cause
why the impugned order be not quashed as
it decides in the teeth of what their
Lordships of the Supreme Court have held
in C.P. Mundinamani. Instead of showing
cause, in the affidavit of compliance that
has been filed, all that is said finds mention
in paragraph nos. 4 and 5, which read:

"4. That pursuant to the aforesaid
directions of this Hon'ble Court the
deponent had sent a communication on
12.09.2023 to the Director, Local Bodies,
U.P. at Lucknow for issuing appropriate
direction so that the order of this Hon'ble
Court may be complied in letter and spirit.
True copy of the communication dated
12.09.2023 sent by the deponent to the
Director, Local Bodies, U.P. at Lucknow is
being filed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE NO. AOC-1 to this affidavit
of compliance.

5. That till this date no direction
has been issued by the Director, Local
Bodies, U.P. The deponent is ready to
comply any direction of this Hon'ble Court
issued in this case."

24. It is interesting to notice that these
two paragraphs of the affidavit, sworn by
the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut
himself, have been verified on the basis of
"information received from the records".
The communication to the Director, Local
Bodies, U.P. dated 12.09.2023, that had
been sent by the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar
Nigam, Meerut, is a document that the
Nagar Ayuktsent himself to the Director,
Local Bodies. One is left to wonder why
this averment would be sworn on the basis
of information received from records. That
apart an averment in an affidavit is sworn
either on the 'basis of record' or
'information received from a person'.
There is no swearing on the basis of
'information received from records'. These
kinds of things happen where official
respondents
intermeddle
with
learned
Counsel's draft and attempt vetting draft
pleadings or affidavits by applying their
'common sense' to the expert field of the
law.

25. The other noticeable feature is
that the Nagar Ayuktis the man competent
on behalf of the Nagar Nigam to sanction
and grant increment to the petitioner. Why
has he then made a reference of the matter
to the Director, Local Bodies is difficult to
explain. If, under the law, the Nagar Ayukt,
Nagar Nigam could reject the petitioner's
claim for grant of the annual increment for
the period 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019,
notionally, it was for him to explain why
his order be not quashed and a mandamus,
as prayed, issued. The Nagar Ayuktis not a
child or a ward sitting in the Director's lap
seeking directions, as if it were, from his
guardian or a parent figure, what to do in
the matter. We strongly disapprove of the
aforesaid course of action adopted by the
Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut and
caution him to be careful in future.

26. The merits of the matter now lie
beyond the realm of cavil. Once the
majority of the Constitutional Courts of the
country, including the Supreme Court of
India, have unequivocally held that a
Regulation, that denies the benefit of an
increment earned by an employee for the
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
year merely because it technically accrues
on the day following his retirement, would
be arbitrary and unreasonable, there is no
option for the Nagar Ayuktbut to notionally
grant the increment. This is what has
been held by the Supreme Court in C.P.
Mundinamani, as also the majority of
the High Courts in the country. In the
face of the holding of the Constitutional
Courts, including the Supreme Court of
India, no Government Order or Rule to
the contrary can be given effect to. It is
not open to the Nagar Ayuktto have
referred to Government Orders in the face
of the law laid down by High Courts
across the country, which at the time the
impugned order was passed, had met with
approval of the Supreme Court, may be
by a summary refusal of leave.

27. The Nagar Ayuktas well as the
State Government are cautioned in the
matter not to act pedantically following
Government Orders on issues that are
governed by judgments of the High Court
or the Supreme Court, rendered after
considering such Government Orders or
Rules holding them to be arbitrary.
Apparently, it seems that the Nagar
Ayukthas thought it safer to go by a
Government Order and seek instructions
from
the
Government,
ignoring
judgments of this Court and the Supreme
Court. This kind of an impression as well
as course of action has to be firmly
discouraged and put down. The impugned
order being clearly one in the teeth of the
consistent law laid down by the High
Courts and finally approved by the
Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani, it
cannot be sustained.

28. In the result, this petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 28.12.2019 passed by the
Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut is
hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to
the respondents to grant annual increment
to the petitioner for the period 01.07.2018
to 30.06.2019 notionally with effect from
01.07.2019. The petitioner's pension
shall be revised accordingly and arrears
of pension paid to the petitioner within a
period of eight weeks of the receipt of a
copy of this judgment, failing which the
arrears will carry simple interest at the
rate of 6% per annum for the period of
delay. A revised Pension Payment Order
shall be issued within the aforesaid
period of time. The petitioner will be
entitled to costs in the sum of Rs.
10,000/- payable by the Nagar Ayukt,
Nagar Nigam, Meerut. It will be open to
the Nagar Nigam, Meerut to recover these
costs from the Nagar Ayuktwho passed
the impugned order.

29.