[2025:RJ-JP:6510] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7173/2022 1. Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner of Industries, Government of Rajasthan, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 3. Director Pension, State of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus Satya Narayan Sharma Son of Shri Govind Narayan Sharma, Resident of House No. B-17, Jadon Nagar, Opposite Dalda Factory, Durgapura Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr.Govardhan Singh Fouzdar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/02/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 14.10.2020 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') by which the appeal submitted by the respondents has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to grant the benefit of one notional annual grade increment on completion of 1 year of service on 30.06.2009. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has apprised this court that the issue involved in the petition has already been set at rest by the court in a batch of writ petitions with the lead case of Vijay Singh versus State of Rajasthan [2025:RJ-JP:6510] (2 of 6) [CW-7173/2022] while deciding SB Civil Writ Petition No.21/2020. Counsel submits that while allowing the aforesaid batch of writ petitions this Court has taken in note of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal Vs. P. Ayyamperumal while deciding (S.L.P. (C) 022008 /2018), the Director (Admn. and H.R.) KPTCL & Ors. Vs C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC online SC 401 & All India Judges Associations Vs Union of India Civil while deciding Writ Petition No.643/2015. Counsel submits that now the issue involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by this Court in the aforesaid matters. Therefore, under the changed circumstances, no further cause of action survives with the petitioners to continue with this petition. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. This fact is not in dispute that the issue raised in this petition has already been decided by the court in the case of Vijay Singh (supra) with the following observations and directions:- "31. There is a purpose for providing that increment earned accrues from the day following which it is earned. The grant of increment is not a matter of course and is dependent upon good conduct of the government servant for the entire year. It is, therefore natural that good conduct must be observed for the entire year before the increment accrues. 32. Annual increment though is attached to the post and becomes payable on a day following which it is earned but the day on which increment accrues or becomes payable is not conclusive or determinative. In the statutory scheme governing progressive appointment increment becomes due for the services [2025:RJ-JP:6510] (3 of 6) [CW-7173/2022] rendered over a year by the government servant subject to his good behaviour. The pay of a government servant rises, by periodical increments, from a minimum to the maximum in the prescribed scale. 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. 33. Law is settled that where entitlement to receive a benefit crystallizes in law its denial would be arbitrary unless it is for a valid reason. The only reason for denying benefit of increment, culled out from the scheme is that the government servant is not holding the post on the day when the increment becomes payable. This cannot be a valid ground for denying increment since the day following the date on which increment is earned only serves the purpose of ensuring completion of a year's service with good conduct and no other purpose can be culled out for it. The concept of day following which the increment is earned has otherwise no purpose to achieve. In isolation of the purpose it serves, the fixation of day succeeding the date of entitlement has no intelligible differentia nor any object is to be achieved by it. The government servant retiring on 30th June has already completed a year of service and the increment has been earned provided his conduct was good. It would thus be wholly arbitrary, if the increment earned by the government employee on the basis of his good conduct for a year is denied only because the reason stated hereinabove. In the present case the scheme for payment of increment would have to be read as whole and one part of Rule 14 and 13 of the Rules of 2008 and Rules of 2017 respectively cannot be read in isolation so as to frustrate the other part, particularly when the other part creates right in the government servant to receive increment. This would ensure that scheme of progressive appointment remains intact and the rights earned by a government servant remains protected and are not denied due to a fortuitous circumstance. 34. In P. Ayyamperumal (supra) the Madras High Court held that once the employees had completed one full year of service as on 30th June, the benefit of increment earned on the basis of completed service of one year cannot be denied because such [2025:RJ-JP:6510] (4 of 6) [CW-7173/2022] increment fell due on 1st July and by that time the employee had retired. The judgment of P. Ayyamperumal (supra) has attained finality till Apex Court. Subsequently, this judgment was followed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra), by the Allahabad High Court in the case of P.P. Pandey Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2021) ILR 1 All. 882 and in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra) and the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered almost each and every judgments of all High Courts in the case of All India Judges Association (supra) and in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra). 35. Controversy involved in these petitions has been put at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by putting seal in the above two cases. Thus, the doctrine of finality has to be applied in a strict legal sense. Judicial propriety and decorum demands that the law laid down by the highest Court of the land must be given effect to. 36. In the country governed by the Rule of Law, the finality of a judgment is absolutely imperative and it is not permissible for the parties to re open the concluded judgments of the Court. It would also nullify the doctrine of ‘stare decisis’ a well settled valuable principle of precedent which cannot be departed from unless there are compelling reasons to do so. The judgments of the Court and particularly Apex Court of a country cannot and should not be unsettled lightly. 37. The hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is its stability and finality. Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and weather. 38. Thus, it is not permissible for the parties to re open the concluded judgments as the same may not only tantamount to an abuse of the process of law and Court but would have far reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice. 39. When the position of law is almost identical everywhere in the other States and when the benefit of Annual Increment is given to such employees like the petitioners, then denial of such benefits to the petitioners would amount to violation of their right of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [2025:RJ-JP:6510] (5 of 6) [CW-7173/2022] 40. Since all the judgments of various High Courts and Hon’ble Apex Court were not brought into the notice of Division Bench of this Court at the time of decision of Safi Mohd.(supra) and after the decision of the case of Safi Mohd.(supra), two judgments have been delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) and All India Judges Association (supra) in favour of the employees like the petitioners by holding that the persons would be entitled to get benefits of annual increments even on the day of their retirement i.e. on 30th June. Hence, under the change circumstances the petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits. 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 1st 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 1st July, notwithstanding their superannuation on 30th June. 42. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove and thereafter 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. 44. Stay applications and all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. 45. The parties are left free to bear their own cost." 5. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds no merit and substance in this petition and accordingly, the same is here by rejected. The petitioners are directed to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. [2025:RJ-JP:6510] (6 of 6) [CW-7173/2022] 6. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /335