Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Kumar Singla And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 16 April, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051157-DB
CWP-8364-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:051157-DB
Page 1 of 5
120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-8364-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.04.2024
Suresh Kumar Singla and others
. . . . Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
. . . . Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
****
Present: Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. The issue raised in this petition is with regard to challenging Rule 10 of
the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (for short 'the
Rules, 2008') which reads as under:
"10. Date of next increment in the revised pay structure:-
There will be a uniform date of annual increment, viz. 1st July of
every year. Employees completing 6 months and above in the revised
pay structure as on 1st of July will be eligible to be granted the
increment. The first increment after fixation of pay on 1.1.2006 in the
revised pay structure will be granted on 1.7.2006 for those employees
also for whom the date of next increment was between 1st of July,
2006 to 1st of January, 2007:
Provided that in the case of persons who had been drawing
maximum of the existing scale for more than a year as on the 1st day
of January, 2006, the next increment in the revised pay structure shall
be allowed on the 1st day of January, 2006. Thereafter, the provision
of rule 10 would apply:
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051157-DB
CWP-8364-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:051157-DB
Provided further that in cases where an employee reaches the
maximum of his pay band, shall be placed in the next higher pay band
after one year of reaching such a maximum. At the time of placement
in the higher pay band, benefit of one increment will be provided.
Thereafter, he will continue to move in the higher pay band till his
pay in the pay band reaches the maximum of PB-4, after which no
further increments will be granted.
Note1.- In cases where two existing scales, one being a promotional
scale for the other, are merged, and the junior Government servant,
now drawing his pay at equal or lower scale of pay, happens to draw
more pay in the pay band in the revised pay structure than the pay of
the senior Government servant in the existing higher scale, the pay in
the pay band of the senior Government servant shall be stepped up to
that of his junior from the same date and he shall draw next increment
in accordance with rule 10."
2. Learned counsel submits that the Rule is ultra vires to the Constitution as
it seeks to take away a right available to an employee for one increment
on completion of his service on the basis that the increment would be
only drawn from 1st of July. Thus, if a person retires on 30th of June, he is
disentitled for the increment which he has earned for the six months
period prior to 30th of June.
3. The issue raised by the petitioners is no more res integra and stands
finally adjudicated by the Supreme Court in the case of The Director
(Administration and HR) KPTCL and others vs. C.P. Mundinamani and
others, 2023 SCC Online SC 401, wherein the Supreme Court while
examining the same issue has upheld the view taken by the High Court of
Karnataka and has held as under:
""6.5 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the
appellants that as the increment has accrued on the next day on
which it is earned and therefore, even in a case where an
employee has earned the increment one day prior to his
retirement but he is not in service the day on which the
increment is accrued is concerned, while considering the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051157-DB
CWP-8364-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:051157-DB
aforesaid issue, the object and purpose of grant of annual
increment is required to be considered. 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 rendering service with
good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment
a government servant has rendered service for a specified
period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the
annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the
annual increment for rendering the specified period of service
with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the
benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having
served for a specified period (one year) with good conduct
efficiently. 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. 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."
4. Notice of motion.
5. Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of
State.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State fairly concedes that the issue
stands already adjudicated, and has also pointed out that the Division
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051157-DB
CWP-8364-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:051157-DB
Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Vijay
Kumar in CWP-24010-2023, decided on 08.11.2023, has taken an
identical stand.
7. The Division Bench in the case of Union of India and others vs. Vijay
Kumar (supra), following the judgment passed by Supreme Court in The
Director (Administration and HR) KPTCL and others (supra), has held as
under:
"4. Thus, the Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani's
case (supra) has decided in no uncertain terms that an
employee who has earned his annual increment is entitled to the
same despite the fact that he has retired a day prior to its
accrual.
5. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in C.P.
Mundinamani's case (supra) fully covers the case of the
respondent in his favour and against the petitioners. Therefore,
the Tribunal is found to have committed no error, in fact or in
law, to allow the respondent's OA."
8. In view of above, we find that the Rule 10 of the Rules, 2008 goes
contrary to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court as well as by the
Division Bench of this Court (supra), and therefore to the said extent
where it denies granting of increment to an employee who has retired on
30th of June or 31st of December of the year, is held to be bad in law.
9. We therefore, read down the Rule 10 of the Rules, 2008 to mean that one
annual increment would be earned to an employee on the last day of his
service, for the services rendered by him in the preceding one year from
the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiency. Accordingly,
the 'uniform date of annual increment' mentioned in Rule 10 would mean
completion of the year as on 1st of July of every year and 1st of January of
a year.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051157-DB
CWP-8364-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:051157-DB
10. Petitioners No.1 and 2 have retired on 30th of June of the concerned year,
while petitioners No.3, 4 and 5 have retired on 31st of March. Annual
increment is to be granted to an employee on account of his past service
of 12 months. The Rule also provides that if a person has rendered more
than six months, he would be deemed to have completed 12 months of
service for the purpose of grant of increment. Since the petitioners, who
retired on 31st of March of the concerned year, have completed 09 months
of service in a year, they were entitled to receive the benefit of increment
for one year. Having reached to the aforesaid finding, we find that the
case of the persons who have retired on 31st of March of the year would
also be entitled for the benefit in terms of the judgment passed in the case
of Director (Administration and HR) KPTCL and others (supra).
11.The writ petition is accordingly allowed as above.
12.Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners No.1 to 5 would be entitled
to one increment and the respondents are directed to revise their retiral
benefits and pension accordingly.
13. Said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months.
14. No costs.
15. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
April 16, 2024
Mohit goyal
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
