High Court of Gujarat
RATILAL CHHAGANBHAI AGHERAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Decided
- Disposal
- 35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- NIRZAR S DESAI
Holding
The High Court held that the petitioners are entitled to the one‑increment benefit and directed the respondents to extend the benefits within three months, otherwise to pass a reasoned order.
Summary
The petitioners, retired government employees whose superannuation date was June 30, claimed they were denied the one‑increment benefit that becomes payable on July 1. They sought direction for the respondents to grant the increment, revise their pensions, and pay arrears with interest. The High Court examined the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India & Others v. M. Siddaraj (Civil Appeal No. 3933 of 2023) and its amended clause (d), which provides a three‑year back‑payment of pension for retirees who filed intervening applications. The Court accepted the petitioners’ argument that they fall under Category D of that decision and are therefore entitled to the increment. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to extend the benefits within three months or issue a reasoned order if any petitioner is not entitled, and dismissed the petition without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether retirees who superannuated on June 30 are entitled to the one‑increment benefit under the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India & Others v. M. Siddaraj.
- Whether the petitioners fall within Category D as defined in the Supreme Court judgment.
- What period of back‑payment of pension benefits is applicable to the petitioners.
- Whether the respondents must grant the increment or, if not, provide a reasoned order.
Subjects
- pension
- increment
- superannuation
- retirement benefits
- Supreme Court decision
- Category D
- administrative law
- writ petition
- intervention
Judgment
C/SCA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8407 of 2024
==========================================================
RATILAL CHHAGANBHAI AGHERA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SMIT P VAGHELA(10653) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6
MR.KRUTIK A PARIKH(7268) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR HENIL SHAH AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4,7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 20/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Kadiwala for learned advocate
Mr.Vyas for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr.Henil Shah for
the Respondent- State, learned advocate Mr.Krutik Parikh for
the respondent No.3 and learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for the
Respondent No.5 and 6.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for
following relief;
(A) Direct the respondent authorities to grant one
increment to the petitioners as per their entitlement and
consequentially, direct the respondent authorities to revise
the pension and other retirement benefits of the
Page 1 of 6
C/SCA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
petitioners and make payment of arrears with interest at
the rate which the Honourable Court may deem just and
proper, and
(B) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition
the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities to consider the case of the
petitioners for grant of one increment, and
(C) Award the cost of this petition, and
(D) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which
the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that each of the
petitioners joined service under the various respondents, and
their birth month falls in June. Therefore, they attained the
age of superannuation on June 30 of their respective years.
Consequently, they were not granted the benefit of one
increment that would have fallen due on July 1 of the same
year.
4. Considering the prayers made, as well as the fact that
the issue regarding grant of one increment to employees
retiring on 30th June of every year has been considered by the
Page 2 of 6
C/SCA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others vs. M.
Siddaraj in Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400 of 2024
in Civil Appeal No. 3933 of 2023, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, by order dated 20th February 2025, passed the
following order:
“Miscellaneous Application Diary Nos. 2400/2024,
35783/2024, 35785/2024 and 35786/2024
Delay condoned.
We had passed the following interim order dated
06.09.2024, 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.
Page 3 of 6
C/SCA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
(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”1, as in such cases, clause (a) will apply.
Page 4 of 6
C/SCA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
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.
Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary Nos. 38437/2023,
38438/2023, 11336/2024 and 20636/2024
In view of the order passed today in the connected
matters, that is, M.A. Diary No. 2400 OF 2024 and other
connected applications, the present contempt petitions
will be treated as disposed of with liberty to the
petitioners to take recourse to appropriate remedies, if
required and necessary, as indicated supra. It goes
without saying that the respondents shall examine the
cases of the petitioners/ applicants in terms of the order
passed today and comply with the same expeditiously.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.”
5. According to learned advocate Mr.Kadiwala, the
Page 5 of 6
C/SCA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
petitioner's case would fall under Category D stated in the first
paragraph of the above-referred decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Learned AGP Mr. Henil Shah, learned advocate
Mr.Munshaw and learned advocate Ms.Krutik Parikh could not
dispute the aforesaid fact.
6. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to consider the
case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Siddaraj (supra) and to extend
the benefits, as per the entitlement of each of the petitioners,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
this order.
6.1. In case if the respondent authority is of the view that
any of the petitioners is not entitled to the benefit as prayed
in this petition, a reasoned order for that may be passed and
the same may be communicated to the petitioners within
period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of.
Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
BHAVIN MEHTA
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/04/2026 16:24:35
Page 6 of 6
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.