Asutosh & Another v/s Commercial Taxes Department (GST) & Others WP. Nos. 17850 & 22730 of 2019 Decided On, 06 January 2020

Asutosh & Another v/s Commercial Taxes Department (GST) & Others

    WP. Nos. 17850 & 22730 of 2019

    Decided On, 06 January 2020

    At, High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA

    For the Petitioners: Kostubh Pathak, Advocate. For the Respondents: Amit Pal, Government Advocate.

Judgment Text

The petitioner is claiming the notional benefit of increment which was due on 1st July, 2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, the petitioner was entitled to the increment on completion of one year service and date of giving the benefit of increment was 1st July, but the petitioner had retired on 30th June 2017, therefore, the benefit has not been extended to him.

The stand of respondents in the reply is that since the petitioner had retired on 30th June 2017 and was not in government service on 1st July 2017, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of increment.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that the controversy involved in this writ petition stands resolved by a coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat in W.P.No. 18030/2019 Rajendra Prasad Tiwari vs. State of MP vide order dated 3/12/2019 in the identical facts situation has allowed the similar writ petition placing reliance upon the judgment of Madras High court.

A coordinate Bench at Indore has also decided the case of identically situated employees in W.P.No.17847/2019 (Gajendra Kumar and others Vs. State of M,.P., and others) on 17/12/2019.

There is no cavil of doubt between the parties as regards the order rendered by this Court in the aforesaid cases (supra).

The Madras High court in the matter of P.Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench & others in WP no. 15732/2017 considering the similar controversy vide order dated 15/9/2017 has held that:

"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, 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.

v