Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sat Paul Garg And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 26 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057459
CWP-1640-2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:057459
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
111
WP-1640-2023 (O&M)
C
Date of decision: 26.04.2024
Sat Paul Garg and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Ms. Riti Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral)
1. The prayer in the present petition is for directing therespondentsto
grant annual increment to the petitioners for the service, that they rendered
continuously for one year before their superannuation and grant them all
consequential benefits including revised pension and pensionary benefits, for
which reliance was placed on the judgment Coordinate Bench. The present
petition was thus adjourned sine die with libertytoreviveitafterthedecisionof
LPA-922-2022, which now stands decided on 09.04.2024, wherein a batch of
petitions with lead LPA-696-2022, titled as State of Punjab and another vs.
Malagar Singhwas dismissed, the relevant paras thereofreads thus:
" 3. The present appeals are also barred by around 43 to 621 days'
delay in filing and 04 to 71 days' delay in re-filing. It has been
brought to our notice that while dealing with the said bunch,
CWP-22679-2020 titled Hari Sharma and others Vs Principal
Secretary and others was also decided. LPA-139-2024 filedbythe
State already stands dismissed by another Coordinate Bench on
16.01.2024 while placing reliance upon the judgement of the Apex
CourtinTheDirector(Admn.andHR)KPTCL&othersVsC.P.
Mundinamani and others, 2023 AIR (SC) 1956. The relevant
portion reads as under:-
"(3)Theaforeissuestandssettledintheemployees'favourby
the Supreme Court in its recent decision dated 11.04.2023
passed in CivilAppealNo.2471of2023(SLP(C)No.6185of
2020) - The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & others vs.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057459
CWP-1640-2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:057459
-2-
C.P.Mundinamaniandothers.Therelevantportionsofthesaid
judgment are reproduced below for reference : -
"6.5 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the
appellants that as the increment has accruedonthenext
day on which it is earned and therefore, even in a case
where an employee has earned the increment one day
priortohisretirementbutheisnotinservicethedayon
which the increment is accrued is concerned, while
consideringtheaforesaidissue,theobjectandpurposeof
grantofannualincrementisrequiredtobeconsidered.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 renderingservice
with good conduct inayear/specifiedperiod.Therefore,
the moment a government servant has rendered service
foraspecifiedperiodwithgoodconduct,inatimescale,
he is entitled to the annual increment and it canbesaid
thathehasearnedtheannualincrementforrenderingthe
specifiedperiodofservicewithgoodconduct.Therefore,
as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual
increment on the eventuality of having served for a
specifiedperiod(oneyear)withgoodconductefficiently.
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.Inviewoftheaboveandforthereasonsstatedabove,
theDivisionBenchoftheHighCourthasrightlydirected
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 agreementwiththeview
taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under
the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be
dismissed andisaccordinglydismissed.However,inthe
facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs."
(4) Thus, the Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani's case
(supra)hasdecidedinnouncertaintermsthatanemployeewho
has earned his annualincrementisentitledtothesamedespite
the fact that he has retired a day prior to its accrual.
(5)InviewofthelawlaiddownbytheSupremeCourtinC.P.
Mundinamani's case (supra), we are of the opinion that the
learned Single Judge has notcommittedanyerrorinfactorin
law to allow the respondents' petition.
(6)Inthelightoftheabove,theappealisdismissedbothonthe
ground of delay as also on merits.
(7) No costs."
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057459
CWP-1640-2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:057459
-3-
xx xx xx
5. Resultantly, the applications for condonation of 43 to 621 days'
delay in filing and 04 to 71 days' delay in re-filingareallowedand
the appeals are dismissed."
2. Learned State counsel despite his best efforts was unable to
controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the
aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law.
3. Inviewoftheaforesaid,thepresentpetitionisdisposedofintermsof
the judgment passed inMalagar Singh(supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
2 6.04.2024
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
