Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 878 (GAU)

Padmini Saikia v. State of Assam

2019-08-06

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2019
ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. AK Maheswari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department for the respondents. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of communication dated 19.03.2019 of the Superintendent In-charge, Jorhat Medical College and Hospital, Jorhat, addressed to the Director of Health Services, Assam, conveying the views that petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of annual increment w.e.f. 01.07.2018 as she had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018 (AN). 3. Issue before the Court is entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit of annual increment in pay for the purpose of retirement benefit, which became due on 01.07.2017, in view of her superannuation from service on 30.06.2018 (AN). 4. Facts are not in dispute. However, for proper adjudication of the issue involved a brief narration of the essential facts is considered necessary. Petitioner joined Government service as a Staff Nurse under the Directorate of Health Services, Assam, on 19.10.1979. Finally, she retired from service as Assistant Nursing Superintendent of Jorhat Medical College and Hospital, Jorhat, on 30.06.2018 (AN) on attaining the age of superannuation. After her superannuation as such, petitioner had submitted a representation claiming that she was entitled to annual increment in pay for the purpose of her pension, which fell due on 01.07.2018. In this connection, Director of Health Services, Assam, referred the matter to the Superintendent of Jorhat Medical College and Hospital, Jorhat, for disposal of the claim of the petitioner, as per provisions contained in the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017. Thereafter, Superintendent In-Charge of Jorhat Medical College and Hospital forwarded the impugned intimation to the Director of Health Services, Assam, on 19.03.2019 taking the view that since petitioner retired from service on the previous day, i.e., on 30.06.2018 (AN), she did not qualify for the annual increment, which fell due w.e.f. 01.07.2018. 5. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed. 6. This Court by order dated 04.05.2019 had issued notice with the observation that an attempt would be made to dispose of the writ petition on the next date. 7. Director of Health Services, Assam, i.e., respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit. In his affidavit, more particularly in paragraphs- 5 and 6 thereof, Director has supported the view taken by the Superintendent. 7. Director of Health Services, Assam, i.e., respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit. In his affidavit, more particularly in paragraphs- 5 and 6 thereof, Director has supported the view taken by the Superintendent. Referring to Rule 10 of the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017, Director has stated that any Government employee, who retires from service on 30th of June on completion of one year, would be entitled to annual increment for the purpose of computation of pension/pensionary benefit. But in so far the instant case is concerned, since petitioner had retired on 30.06.2018 (AN), it would be construed that she had not completed one year of her service to be eligible to the benefit of annual pay increment as per Rule 10. 8. Petitioner has filed reply affidavit to the affidavit of respondent No. 2, reiterating her contention. 9. Mr. Maheswari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if Rule 10 is strictly interpreted perhaps petitioner may be outside the purview of Rule 10. However, in a ease of this nature, a liberal interpretation is called for. He also submits that in a similar matter under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, vide order dated 15.09.2017, in WP(C) No. 15732 of 2017 (P Ayyamperumal Vs. Registrar) had upheld identical claim as that of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that similar view may be taken in the present case as well. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Upamanyu has referred to the affidavit filed by the Director and supports the view taken by the Superintendent. 11. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 12. As already noted above, facts are not in dispute. Short point for consideration is entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit of annual pay increment for the purpose of computation of pension/pensionary benefit, effective from 01.07.2018, in view of her superannuation on 30.06.2018 (AN). For adjudicating the issue framed, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017 (ROP Rules). The aforesaid Rules have been framed by the Governor of Assam in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 10 is relevant and is extracted hereunder:- "10. The aforesaid Rules have been framed by the Governor of Assam in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 10 is relevant and is extracted hereunder:- "10. Date of increment of revised pay structure : In respect of Government employees, these (there) shall be a uniform date of annual increment and such date of annual increment shall be 1st July of every year." 13. A reading of Rule 10 as extracted above would go to show that in respect of Government employee there shall be a uniform date of annual increment and such date of annual increment shall be 1st July of every year. A careful examination of Rule 10 would indicate that 1st July of every year is the date fixed for grant of annual increment For grant of such benefit, a Government employee has to complete a year in service on 30th of June of that year. 1st of July is the notified date for grant of the annual increment. What is relevant is completion of the annual service period on the preceding day, i.e., 30th of June of every year. If the Government employee completes the annual service as on 30th of June, he would be eligible to the benefit of annual increment in pay w.e.f. 1st of July. 14. In so far the present case is concerned, the admitted position is that petitioner superannuated from service in the afternoon of 30.06.2018. In other words, she had completed the cycle of one year of service in the afternoon of 30.06.2018, and, therefore, she became eligible for annual pay increment, effective from 01.07.2018. It is another matter that on 01.07.2018, petitioner was no longer in service as she had superannuated on the previous evening after full day. Going on superannuation effective from 30th of June, 2018 (AN) is only incidental. 1st of July is not the relevant day to enable a Government employee to become eligible for annual increment in pay. Eligibility as already discussed is the completion of the annual service on the previous day. When the office hours closed on the previous day the Government employee completes the annual year of service. So far the petitioner is concerned, she had completed her annual service in the afternoon of 30.06.2018 and also retired from service. 15. Eligibility as already discussed is the completion of the annual service on the previous day. When the office hours closed on the previous day the Government employee completes the annual year of service. So far the petitioner is concerned, she had completed her annual service in the afternoon of 30.06.2018 and also retired from service. 15. Similar provision is there in Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, where also increment has to be given from 1st of July. In P Ayyamperumal (supra), like the present petitioner, the said petitioner had superannuated on 30.06.2013. High Court of Judicature at Madras took the view that the said petitioner had completed one full year of service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date, he was not in service. Court treated the petitioner as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment fell on the next date of his retirement Accordingly, respondents were directed to pay one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. 16. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which reinforces the view taken by this Court in the preceding discussion. 17. Accordingly and in the light of the above, respondents are directed to grant one notional pay increment to the petitioner for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018, as petitioner had completed one full year of service though her increment fell due on 01.07.2018. Such notional pay increment shall be granted only for the purpose of pensionary benefit and not for any other purpose. 18. Writ petition is accordingly allowed, but without any order as to costs.