Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sat Paul Garg And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 26 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057459
CWP-1640-2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:057459
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
111
WP-1640-2023 (O&M)
C
Date of decision: 26.04.2024
Sat Paul Garg and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present : Ms. Riti Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral) 1. The prayer in the present petition is for directing therespondentsto grant annual increment to the petitioners for the service, that they rendered continuously for one year before their superannuation and grant them all consequential benefits including revised pension and pensionary benefits, for which reliance was placed on the judgment Coordinate Bench. The present petition was thus adjourned sine die with libertytoreviveitafterthedecisionof LPA-922-2022, which now stands decided on 09.04.2024, wherein a batch of petitions with lead LPA-696-2022, titled as State of Punjab and another vs. Malagar Singhwas dismissed, the relevant paras thereofreads thus: " 3. The present appeals are also barred by around 43 to 621 days' delay in filing and 04 to 71 days' delay in re-filing. It has been brought to our notice that while dealing with the said bunch, CWP-22679-2020 titled Hari Sharma and others Vs Principal Secretary and others was also decided. LPA-139-2024 filedbythe State already stands dismissed by another Coordinate Bench on 16.01.2024 while placing reliance upon the judgement of the Apex CourtinTheDirector(Admn.andHR)KPTCL&othersVsC.P. Mundinamani and others, 2023 AIR (SC) 1956. The relevant portion reads as under:- "(3)Theaforeissuestandssettledintheemployees'favourby the Supreme Court in its recent decision dated 11.04.2023 passed in CivilAppealNo.2471of2023(SLP(C)No.6185of 2020) - The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & others vs. 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 01:57:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057459 CWP-1640-2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:057459 -2- C.P.Mundinamaniandothers.Therelevantportionsofthesaid judgment are reproduced below for reference : - "6.5 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that as the increment has accruedonthenext day on which it is earned and therefore, even in a case where an employee has earned the increment one day priortohisretirementbutheisnotinservicethedayon which the increment is accrued is concerned, while consideringtheaforesaidissue,theobjectandpurposeof grantofannualincrementisrequiredtobeconsidered.A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned for renderingservice with good conduct inayear/specifiedperiod.Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service foraspecifiedperiodwithgoodconduct,inatimescale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it canbesaid thathehasearnedtheannualincrementforrenderingthe specifiedperiodofservicewithgoodconduct.Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specifiedperiod(oneyear)withgoodconductefficiently. Merely because, the government servant has retired on the very next day, how can he be denied the annual increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to for rendering the service with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding one year. xxxx xxxx xxxx 7.Inviewoftheaboveandforthereasonsstatedabove, theDivisionBenchoftheHighCourthasrightlydirected the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreementwiththeview taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed andisaccordinglydismissed.However,inthe facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." (4) Thus, the Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani's case (supra)hasdecidedinnouncertaintermsthatanemployeewho has earned his annualincrementisentitledtothesamedespite the fact that he has retired a day prior to its accrual. (5)InviewofthelawlaiddownbytheSupremeCourtinC.P. Mundinamani's case (supra), we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has notcommittedanyerrorinfactorin law to allow the respondents' petition. (6)Inthelightoftheabove,theappealisdismissedbothonthe ground of delay as also on merits. (7) No costs." 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 01:57:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057459 CWP-1640-2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:057459 -3- xx xx xx 5. Resultantly, the applications for condonation of 43 to 621 days' delay in filing and 04 to 71 days' delay in re-filingareallowedand the appeals are dismissed." 2. Learned State counsel despite his best efforts was unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law. 3. Inviewoftheaforesaid,thepresentpetitionisdisposedofintermsof the judgment passed inMalagar Singh(supra). (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 2 6.04.2024 Hemant hether speaking/reasoned W : es / No Y Whether reportable : Yes / No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 01:57:15 :::