Allahabad High Court
Virendra Kumar Shukla vs Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation ... on 26 July, 2021
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8295 of 2021
Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Shukla
Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Lucknow Through Its Chairman/Secretary. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulab Chandra,Rupesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Baleshwar Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue raised in this petition stands stands concluded in favour of the petitioner in light of the decision rendered by the Court in Manveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and others [Writ-A No. 3047 of 2021 decided on 16.3.2021].
That petition came to be disposed of in the following terms:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30 June 2019. It is contended that the annual increment which was liable to be released w.e.f. 01 July 2019 has not been provided to him. Learned counsel, in this connection, relies upon the law as enunciated by the Division Bench in Mohd. Husain Vs. State of U.P. and Others [Writ -A No. 14966 of 2010, decided on 23 March 2010] where after noticing the relevant provisions made in the Fundamental Rules it was held:
"In S.Banerjee Vs. Union of India (supra) followed by the Court, the Supreme Court considering the matter of retirement of Addl. Registrar of the Court relied upon Rule 5(2) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 providing that the date of retirement of the government servant or the date, when he has discharged or is allowed to resign from duties is to be treated as his last working day. The date of death is also treated as last working day provided that government servant retires prematurely or voluntarily under Fundamental Rule 56(j) to (m) or Rule 48 or 48A as the case may be. The date of his retirement shall be treated as non working day. If the date on which the government servant retires is treated as last working day, the next day will be the date on which the government servant retires. In para 6 of the judgment it was held that the employees retiring on January Ist, 1986 will be entitled to the benefit of para 17.3 of the report of the Pay Commission, admitting him to the benefits of the revision in the pay scales.
Following the aforesaid pronouncement of law, we are of the opinion that since the petitioner was retired on 30.6.2009 , his last working day shall be treated as 30.6.2009 and that he would be retired on 1.7.2009. Since he was to be given benefit of one increment according to his date of birth (1.7.1949), he would have retired on 1.7.2009 taking with him the benefit of one increment payable to him in 2006 entitled to calculation of his pension accordingly.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Director (Pension) to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 7.1.2010 in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in the above decision as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him."
He also places reliance on a decision rendered by a learned Judge of the Court in Mahesh Chaubey Vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others [Writ -A No. 3372 of 2020, decided on 03 March 2020], where the view taken by the Division Bench noticed above, has been reiterated.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 3 to duly evaluate the claim of the petitioner for release of annual increment in light of the law as rendered in Mohd. Husain. The aforesaid exercise of consideration shall be concluded with expedition and preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order."
In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the ends of justice would merit the matter being remitted to the second respondent for re-evaluating the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9 February 2021 stands set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the second respondent for re-evaluating the claim of the petitioner afresh. The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded with expedition and preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this order.
Order Date :- 26.7.2021
Rakesh
