Jharkhand High Court
Uma Shankar Sharan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 March, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1259 of 2025
-----
Uma Shankar Sharan, S/o Late Ishwari Sharan, R/o Jai Guru Jai Nitai, Professor
Colony, P.O. Bilasi Town, P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar
------ Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical
Education & Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand
2.The Director, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development,
Government of Jharkhand
3.Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka, through its Registrar, having its office at
P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District Dumka
4.The Vice Chancellor, Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka, having its office at
P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District Dumka
------ Respondent(s)
......
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Ms. Pinky Tiwary, AC to A.G.
For the Resp. Nos.3&4 : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, Advocate
.........
02 / 12.03.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the Respondents-State.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to grant him one
increment, since he has superannuated on 30.06.2016 i.e. the date when
the increment was due.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
increment fell due on 30.06.2016 to be approved on the next day and
the petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2016, he is being denied of the
same benefit.
4. The point which the petitioner has raised is covered by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director
(Administration and Human Resources) KPTCL and Others vs. C.P.
MundinamanI and Others, reported in (2023) 14 SCC 411. It is
necessary to quote paras 21 and 23 of the aforesaid judgment:-
"21. In the present case the word "accrue" should be understood liberally and
would mean payable on the succeeding day. Any contrary view would lead to
arbitrariness and unreasonableness and denying a government servant
legitimate one annual increment though he is entitled to for rendering the
services over a year with good behaviour and efficiently and therefore, such a
narrow interpretation should be avoided.
23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench
of the High Court has rightly directed 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 agreement
with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the
circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs."
5. Considering the aforesaid fact, I direct the respondents to take a
decision, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
extend the benefit to the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible. The
respondents will not take the plea that the petitioner has
superannuated on the date when the increment actually accrued.
6. Petitioner should file a representation before the respondent
No.3, who will pass a reasoned order and will ensure that the due is
paid to the petitioner, if payable, within a period of twelve weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. It is also made clear that consequential benefits such as refixation
of his pensionary benefit will also be done during the aforesaid period.
8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
R.S.
