Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1289 (RAJ)

Hanumanram S/o Shri Shriram v. State of Rajasthan

2025-05-12

REKHA BORANA

body2025
ORDER : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. All the present writ petitions have been filed with a prayer that the petitioners be held entitled to get the benefit of annual grade increment falling due on 1 st July irrespective of their superannuation on 30 th June. 2. The writ petitioners comprise of persons retiring between the period of year 2007 to 2023. A list of respective petitioners in all the writ petitions, with the date of their retirement, is annexed as Appendix-A. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submit that the issue involved has been put to rest by a Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court at Jaipur in Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary & Ors., 2023 (7) WLC 211 (Raj.) whereby the Court, while relying upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., (2023) 14 SCC 411 observed and held as under : “41. Hence, looking to the binding effect of above judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) and All India Judges Association (supra), it is held that the petitioners would be entitled to get the benefits of increment falling due on 1 st July on account of their conduct for the requisite length of time i.e. one year. The petitioners would be entitled to get notional payment on 1 st July notwithstanding their superannuation on 30 th June. 42. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove and therater grant notional increment to the petitioners. The petitioners’ pension would consequently be refixed. The appropriate orders be issued and the arrears of pension be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 43. With the aforesaid directions, all these petitions stand dispose of.” 4. This Court, after hearing the counsels on 27.05.2024, though was in conformity with the ratio of Vijay Singh’s case (supra) to the extent that the petitioners would be entitled to get notional benefit of annual grade increment on 1 st July not withstanding their superannuation on 30 th June, but intended to differ on the aspect of entitlement of the petitioners to get the arrears of pension. The said view of the Court was for the reason that the petitioners include not only those who retired in the year 2023 but also those who retired way back in the year 2007 and thereafter. They chose to approach the Court only after the judgment in Vijay Singh’s case (supra) having been passed. The issue therefore was, whether such persons would be entitled to the arrears of pension for the complete period even when they did not choose to challenge the non-payment of the annual grade increment at the time when they retired. The Court therefore, on the said date, framed the following two issues for consideration : i. Whether the petitioners who have retired way back between the years 2016-19 would be entitled to the benefit of increment with effect from the respective month of July or that year in light of the judgment dated 21.07.2023 of this Court at Jaipur Bench rendered in a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21/2020; Vijay Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ? ii. Whether the case of Vijay Singh (supra) would have a retrospective effect ? 5. All the respective counsels for the petitioners as well as learned AAG, Mr. Rajesh Panwar argued on the above aspect and even written submissions on behalf of the respondent State had been filed. 6. However, this Court is now not required to delve into the above issues as the similar issues were raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of several applications, the main being Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400/2024 in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023; Union of India Vs. M. Siddaraj, Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 was decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court while relying upon the judgment in C.P. Mundinamani’s case (supra) i.e. the same judgment relied upon in Vijay Singh’s case (supra). 7. While disposing of the said appeal vide order dated19.05.2023, the Apex Court observed as under: “Delay condoned. Leave granted. The issue raised in these appeals is squarely covered by a judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 decided on 11.04.2023 titled as Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and Others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Others, (2023) SCC Online SC 401. The issue being same, the present civil appeals also stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The issue raised in these appeals is squarely covered by a judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 decided on 11.04.2023 titled as Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and Others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Others, (2023) SCC Online SC 401. The issue being same, the present civil appeals also stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. All the intervention application/impleadment application are allowed and the intervenors/impleaded respondents shall be entitled to the same relief. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” 8. After above order dated 19.05.2023 been passed, several applications were filed in Civil Appeal No.3933/2023 wherein an issue regarding the applicability of judgment dated 11.04.2023 in C.P. Mundinamani’s case (supra) was raised. 9. While dealing with the said applications, the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide an interim order dated 06.09.2024 passed in Misc. Application Diary No.2400/2024, observed and directed as under : “The issue raised in the present applications requires consideration, insofar as the date of applicability of the judgment dated 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023, titled Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and Others, to third parties is concerned. We are informed that a large number of fresh writ petitions have been filed. To prevent any further litigation and confusion, by of an interim order we direct that : (a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid. (b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be paid. (c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the appellate court. (d) In case any retired employee has filed any application for intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal No.3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable from the month in which the application for intervention/impleadment was filed. This interim order will continue till further orders of this Court. (d) In case any retired employee has filed any application for intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal No.3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable from the month in which the application for intervention/impleadment was filed. This interim order will continue till further orders of this Court. However, no person who has already received an enhanced pension including arrears, will be affected by the directions in (a), (c) and (d).” 10. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court proceeded on to dispose of all the miscellaneous applications and vide order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400/2024 in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023; Union of India Vs. M. Siddaraj observed and directed as under: “We had passed the following interim order dated06.09.2024, the operative portion of which reads as under : “(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is,the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid. (b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be paid. (c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the appellate court. (d) In case any retired employee has filed any application for intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal No.3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable from the month in which the application for intervention/impleadment was filed.” We are inclined to dispose of the present miscellaneous applications directing that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the order dated 06.09.2024 will be treated as final directions. We are, however, of the opinion that Clause (d) of the order dated 06.09.2024 requires modification which shall now read as under : “(d) In case any retired employee filed an application for intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable for the period of three years prior to the month in which the application for intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application was filed.” Further, clause (d) will not apply to the retired government employee who filed a writ petition/original application or an application for intervention before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court after the judgment in “Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj”, as in such cases, clause(a) will apply. Recording the aforesaid, the miscellaneous applications are disposed of. We, further, clarify that in case any excess payment has already been made, including arrears, such amount paid will not be recovered. It will be open to any person aggrieved by non-compliance with the directions and the clarification of this Court, in the present order, to approach the concerned authorities in the first instance and, if required, the Administrative Tribunal or High Court, as per law. Pending applications including all intervention/impleadment applications shall stand disposed of in terms of this order.” 11. What can be concluded from the above orders, is summarised as under: (a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 passed in C.P. Mundinamani’s case (supra) will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, after taking into consideration one increment, the pension will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. The enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid. (b) For persons who had filed writ petitions prior to the judgment in C.P. Mundinamani’s case (supra) and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension after granting one grade increment will have to be paid. Meaning thereby, they would be entitled to arrears of pension too. (c) The direction in (b) will not apply where the judgment has not attained finality and an appeal had been preferred by the State/Department and entertained by the appellate court. Meaning thereby, they would be entitled to arrears of pension too. (c) The direction in (b) will not apply where the judgment has not attained finality and an appeal had been preferred by the State/Department and entertained by the appellate court. (d) In case any retired employee filed an application for intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal/ High Courts/Supreme Court, the enhanced pension by including one grade increment will be payable for the period of three years prior to the month in which the application for intervention/ impleadment/ writ petition/original application was filed. (e) Clause (d) will not apply to the retired government employee who filed a writ petition/original application or an application for intervention before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/Supreme Court after judgment dated 19.05.2023 been passed in Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj and in such cases, clause(a) will apply. (f) In all those cases where any excess payment has already been made, including arrears, such amount paid will not be recovered. (g) Any person aggrieved by non-compliance with the directions and the clarifications as made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in C.P. Mundinamani’s case (supra) and M. Siddaraj’s case (supra), that is to say, whosoever now wishes to file afresh, shall be under an obligation at the first instance to approach the concerned authorities and then, if required, the Administrative Tribunal or the High Court, as per law. (h) If any retired employee approaches the concerned authorities in terms of clause (g), the concerned authority shall be under an obligation to examine the case of each petitioner/applicant in terms of order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application Diary No.2400 of 2024 In Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023. (i) No person who has already received the enhanced pension including arrears will be affected by the directions in (a), (c) & (d). 12. In view of the conclusions/directions as derived/passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and as summed up by this Court as above, all the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file a fresh representation(s) before the respondent Authorities clearly reflecting their date of retirement and the date of filing of the writ petition(s) before this Court. The representation(s) be filed within a period of 15 days from now. 13. The representation(s) be filed within a period of 15 days from now. 13. On the representation(s) been filed, let the same be decided within a period of four weeks thereafter. The consequential orders of payment (if any) be passed within a period of four weeks thereafter. 14. Stay petitions and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.