Public Holiday Preventing Joining On Due Date Can't Postpone Accrual Of First Increment: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an appointment stood validly made and the appointee could take charge only on the next working day because the intervening day was a public holiday, the holiday cannot by itself postpone the accrual of a service benefit otherwise due to him.
Paragraph 8(2) of the Government Order dated 22.12.2016, issued under the Seventh Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2016, provides two annual increment dates. An employee appointed between 02 January and 01 July draws his increment on 01 January, and one appointed between 02 July and 01 January draws it on 01 July.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,
“What is held is that, where the appointment stood validly made, the intervening day was a public holiday, and the appointee joined on the next available working day in accordance with the applicable Government Orders, such intervening holiday cannot, by itself, be permitted to defeat the continuity of service or to postpone the accrual of an otherwise admissible service benefit.”
The petitioners were appointed Assistant Teachers by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Pilibhit, on 28.06.2016. As 01.07.2016 was a public holiday, they submitted their joining on 02.07.2016. Their first increment was sanctioned from 01.07.2017 instead of 01.01.2017, and their representations were not acted upon.
They argued that paragraph 8(2) speaks only of the date of appointment, which for all of them was 28.06.2016, and relied on the Government Order dated 17.08.2009, under which a person who could take charge only on the first working day, the due date being a Sunday or a gazetted holiday, was to be treated as having completed six months' service for the increment.
Standing Counsel submitted that the appointment order made the appointment operative from the date of assuming charge, so the date to be reckoned was 02.07.2016.
Observing that 1st July was a public holiday, the Court held that,
“Thus, the fact that the appointees could physically enter upon their duties only on 2 July 2016 cannot, by itself, be construed as an abandonment or postponement of the rights flowing from their appointment, particularly when the inability to join on the earlier date was occasioned by a circumstance beyond their control.”
It held that where the administrative instruction provided the benefit of joining delayed due to a public holiday, the same must be passed on to the appointee, rather than putting his at a disadvantage for something which is beyond his/her control.
The Court held that the date of actual joining could not be the sole test, and a gap of one day caused only by a public holiday could not shift the date from which service benefits are counted unless the governing provision said so.
“An increment is not a bounty bestowed at the discretion of the employer; it is a service benefit regulated by the applicable service rules and the Government Orders issued thereunder. Once the qualifying period prescribed for its accrual is completed, the employee becomes entitled to its benefit in accordance with the governing rules. Consequently, the computation of such qualifying service must commence from the legally recognised date of appointment or commencement of service and cannot be artificially postponed merely because the appointee, for reasons beyond his control, could enter upon actual physical service only on the next working day.”
Clarifying that its conclusion was confined to the facts and did not lay down that the date of appointment would always prevail over the date of joining, the Court disposed of the writ petitions, directing the competent authority to decide the petitioners' individual representations by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks and not to reject the claim merely because the joining report bears the date 02.07.2016.
Case Title: Seema Ray and 3 others v. State of U.P. and 5 others