Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997 – Regulation 40(1) – As per Regulation 40(1) an increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned – Appellant-KTCL denied the annual increment to the respondentsrespective employees on the ground that the day on which the increment accrued, the respondents were not in service – 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 – Held: Merely because, the government servant has retired on the very next day, he cannot be denied the annual increment which he has earned – In the instant 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.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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 or 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. [Para 6.5][339F-H; 340-A-C]
2. 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 arbitrariness which and/or would lead to 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. [Para 6.7][343-A-E] P. Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar and Ors. W.P. No. 15732/2017 decided on 15.09.2017 by the Madras High Court; Gopal Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. Writ Petition (C) No. 10509/2019 decided on
23.01.2020 by the Delhi High Court; Nand Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. Writ A No. 13299/2020 decided on 29.06.2021 by the Allahabad High Court; Yogendra Singh Bhadauria and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court); AFR Arun Kumar Biswal Vs. State of Odisha and Anr. Writ Petition No. 17715/2020 decided on 30.07.2021 by Orissa High Court; State of Gujarat Vs. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara Letters Patent Appeal No. 868/2021 by the Gujarat High Court – approved.
Principal Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh and Anr. Vs. C. Subba Rao 2005 (2) LLN 592; Union of India Vs. Pavithran O.P.(CAT) No. 111/2020 decided on 22.11.2022 by the Kerala High Court; Hari Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020 by the Himachal Pradesh High Court – disapproved.
Union of India and Ors. Vs. R. Malakondaiah and ors. 2002(4) ALT 550 (D.B.) – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.