Allahabad High Court
Vijay Kumar Srivastava And Others vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) Lko. Thru. Its ... on 30 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41410
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4374 of 2024
Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Srivastava And Others
Respondent :- U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) Lko. Thru. Its Managing Director And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Bajpai,Ashok Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- Rishabh Kapoor,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioners, Shri Rishabh Kapoor, counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 6 and Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Counsel for the State.
2. The instant petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to sanction one increment to the Petitioner No. 1 which fell payable to him on 01/07/2021 (since the same was earned by him on 30/06/2021, on completing one year of satisfactory and efficiently service during the year 2020-21-- for the period from 01/07/2022 to 30/06/2023), irrespective of the fact that the Petitioner No. 1 had retired on 30/06/2021 on attaining the age of superannuation.
(ii) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to sanction one increment to the Petitioner No. 2 which fell payable to him on 01/07/2017 (since the same was earned by him on 30/06/2017, on completing one year of satisfactory and efficiently service during the year 2016-17 -- for the period from 01/07/2016 to 30/06/2017), irrespective of the fact that the Petitioner No. 2 had retired on 30/06/2017 on attaining the age of superannuation.
(iii) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to sanction one increment to the Petitioner No. 3 which fell payable to him on 01/07/2014 (since the same was earned by him on 30/06/2014, on completing one year of satisfactory and efficiently service during the year 2014-14 -- for the period from 01/07/2013 to 30/06/2014), irrespective of the fact that the Petitioner No. 3 had retired on 30/06/2014 on attaining the age of superannuation.
(iv) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to sanction one increment to the Petitioner No. 4 which fell payable to him on 01/07/2014 (since the same was earned by him on 30/06/2014, on completing one year of satisfactory and efficiently service during the year 2014-14 for the period from 01/07/2013 to 30/06/2014), irrespective of the fact that the Petitioner No. 4 had retired on 30/06/2014 on attaining the age of superannuation.
(v) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to sanction one increment to the Petitioner No. 5 which fell payable to him on 01/07/2013 (since the same was earned by him on 30/06/2013, on completing one year of satisfactory and efficiently service during the year 2012-13 for the period from 01/07/2012 to 30/06/2013), irrespective of the fact that the Petitioner No. 3 had retired on 30/06/2013 on attaining the age of superannuation.
(vi) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to pay consequential service benefits including arrears of pension arising out of sanction of increment to them.
(vii) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to pay interest at rate of SBI MCLR+1% on the arrear amount arising out of grant of increment as demanded from the date on which it fell payable to the date on which the same is actually paid to the Petitioner."
3. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 were initially appointed on the post of Junior Engineer in years 1984, 1981, 1978, 1978 & 1979 respectively and they retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2021, 30.06.2017, 30.06.2014, 30.06.2014 & 30.06.2012 respectively while working on the post of Assistant Engineer / Junior Engineer in U.P. Jal Nigam Department. He added that the the petitioners are entitled for the annual increment, which was due to the petitioners from successive dates of their retirement aforementioned, as per the law laid down in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation [2022 SCC Online SC page 641] later on followed by The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & others versus C.P. Mundinamani and others [2023 SCC Online SC 404].
4. Further contention of Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 are entitled for the benefits of annual increment with effect from 01.07.2021, 01.07.2017, 01.07.2014, 01.07.2014 & 01.07.2012 respectively.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the opposite party no. 3 is hereby directed to decide the claim of the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 which were raised by them vide representations dated 09.01.2024, 11.01.2024, 03.01.2024, 29.02.2024 & 25.01.2021 respectively, within period of four weeks, in light of the order dated 13.05.2024, passed in Writ A No. 3684 of 2024, including the other judgments, appended with the writ petition.
6. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 30.5.2024
Lokesh Kumar
