'Nagar Ayukt Not Child Or Ward Sitting In Director's Lap': Allahabad HC Imposes ₹10K Cost For Not Granting Increment To Retired Employee

Recently, the Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut for denying an increment to the government employee retiring on the day prior to the accrual of the increment. The Court held that the action of the Nagar Ayukt based on a Government Order was against various judgments of the Allahabad High Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Director (Admn. HR) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others.

While referring to the personal affidavit filed by Nagar Ayukt, the Court questioned the reference made by Nagar Ayukt to the Director, Local Bodies when Nagar Ayukt was the competent authority to grant the increment to the petitioner. Since the claim of the petitioner for notional increment was rejected by the Nagar Ayukt, the Court held that it was for him to explain as to why the writ of mandamus sought by the petitioner not be issued.

“The Nagar Ayukt is 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.”

Factual Background

Petitioner was a clerk in Nagar Nigam, Meerut. Since the petitioner's retirement was due, he requested Nagar Ayukt for his increment for the period 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019. Since no action was taken, the petitioner approached the High Court wherein direction was issued to the Nagar Ayukt to consider the claim of notional increment made by the petitioner.

On 28.12.2019, Nagar Ayukt, Arvind Kumar Chaurasia, passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner on grounds that increments can only be granted to employees in service whereas the petitioner had retired. It was stated that no rule or Government Order provides for payment of increments to employees after their retirement. Since the petitioner had retired a day prior to which increments for the said period were due, he was entitled for the same.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking his due increment for the period 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019, payable upon his retirement.

High Court Verdict

The Court relied on Union of India and 3 others v. Shiv Balak and 2 others, wherein the Allahabad High Court had upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby increment accrued to employees till 30^th June, which was due on 1^st July was granted to them as notional increment if they had retired on 30^th June.

The Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani held that denying an increment to an employee for the period already serviced by him is like punishing the employee for no fault of his. It was held that an increment can only be withheld as a punishment or duty not performed efficiently.

“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,” held the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court while delivering the judgment upheld the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India where it was held that the increment cannot be denied solely on the ground that on the date on which the increment became payable, the employee was not holding the post. The Court had held that once the employee had completed his services on 30^th June, on the day of his retirement, he had served for the period of increment and denying the increment because it was payable on 1^st July would be arbitrary.

“In the case of a government servant retiring on 30th of June the next day on which increment falls due/becomes payable loses 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,” held the Court in Nand Vijay Singh.

Justice Munir held that once the law regarding the grant of increment to an employee accruing on the day following his retirement has been settled by the Constitutional Courts, it was not open for the Nagar Ayukt to deny the increment based on some Government Order. The Court cautioned the Nagar Ayukt and the State Government to not “act pedantically” by following Government Orders on issues which have been settled by the Courts.

“Apparently, it seems that the Nagar Ayukt has 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.”

While allowing the writ petition and directing payment of the increment for the period 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019 along with interest, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut.

Case Title: Shri Pal vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 255 [WRIT - A No. - 13858 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 255

Click Here To Read/Download Order