Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 05.11.2024 vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 5 November, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:10712
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 4373 of 2024
Decided on : 05.11.2024
Shri Babu Ram Thakur
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner : Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal,
Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal,
Additional Advocate General, for
respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
With the consent of the parties, this petition is being
disposed of, at this stage.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter
alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
"The petitioner may kindly be held entitled for
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:10712
the annual increment @ about Rs. 1572/-, which
was due on 01.11.2021 and the respondents may
kindly be directed to grant the annual increment @
about Rs. 1572/-, to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.11.2021
with all consequential benefits and accordingly to
revise the pension and pensionary benefits of the
petitioner and to release the arrears to the petitioner
with interest, in the interest of law, justice and
fairplay."
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed
as a Clerk in the Education Department and he joined as such
on 07.02.1985. After gaining various promotions, he
superannuated from the post of Superintendent Gr.II on
31.10.2021. The grievance of the petitioner is that the annual
increment, which was due on 01.11.2021, has been denied to
him on the ground that as on the day when the increment was
due, the petitioner was not in service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the act of the respondents of not granting increment to the
petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had superannuated
from service as on the day when the increment fell due, is bad
2024:HHC:10712
in law, for the reason that as increment is given for the good
conduct of an employee for rendering an year's service, the
same could not have been denied to him, simply on the ground
that as on the date, when the increment fell due, the petitioner
had superannuated. Learned counsel submitted that the
increment was a result of the hard work that the petitioner had
put in, in the year preceding the date, when the increment was
due and further as the issue is not more res integra in the light
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in The
Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani
& Ors., 2023 SCC online SC 401, decided on 11.04.2023,
therefore, the petition be allowed, as prayed for.
5. Learned Additional Advocate has submitted that it is
a matter of record that the petitioner retired on 31.10.2021 and
the increment fell due on 01.11.2021, however, as the petitioner
had already superannuated as on the day, when the increment
was due, therefore, there is no illegality in the act of the
respondents of not granting the annual increment to the
petitioner.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
2024:HHC:10712
having gone through the pleadings as well as documents
appended therewith as also the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that denial of
increment to the petitioner simply on the ground that he
superannuated one day before the increment was due is not
sustainable in law.
7. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India referred to hereinabove, the increment is earned
by an employee on account of the service which he renders in
the preceding year before the increment is actually granted to
an employee. This means that it was the conduct of the
petitioner w.e.f. 01.11.2020 upto 31.10.2021, which was
relevant for the purposes of the conferment of increment for his
work and conduct for this particular calendar year, which the
employer was to confer upon the petitioner on 01.11.2021.
Because, the petitioner superannuated on 31.10.2021 and was
not in service from 01.11.2021, the same has been denied to
him.
8. This Court is of the considered view that in light of
2024:HHC:10712
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Director
(Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.
(supra), the denial of the increment to the petitioner on the
ground that the petitioner superannuated a day before the
increment was due is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The
petitioner rendered the service for the complete calendar year,
which was relevant and was to be construed for the purpose of
the conferment of the increment. It is not the stand of the
respondents that on account of his work and conduct in the
preceding calendar year, the petitioner was not entitled for the
grant of the increment. Therefore, simply because the petitioner
superannuated a day before the increment was due, the
increment could not have been denied to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The act of
the respondents of denying increment to the petitioner which
was to fall due on 01.11.2021 on the ground that the petitioner
superannuated on 31.10.2021 is declared to be bad and
respondents are directed to confer the increment which was
due to the petitioner on 01.11.2021 on account of the work
performed by him w.e.f. 01.11.2020 to 31.10.2021 with
2024:HHC:10712
consequential benefits. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
November 05, 2024
(Shivank Thakur)
