Kailash Chand And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 13294 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kailash Chand And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 August, 2024

Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098118-DB




CWP-18038-2024
          2024 (O&M)                                                                  -1-


116
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                   CWP-18038-2024 (O&M)
                                                 Date of Decision: 01.08.2024
                                                                        .2024
KAILASH CHAND AND ORS
                                                               . . . . Petitionerss
                        Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
                                                             . . . . Respondentss
                               ****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
                               ****
Present: Mr. Monu Sharma, Advocate for
         Mr.
         Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate
         for the petitioners.

         Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana.
                              ****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. Notice of motion.

motion

2. Ms. Tanisha anisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of

State.

3. Taking into consideration that the issue stands finally adjudicated by

this Court in terms of an earlier judgment passed by the Coordinate

Bench in Union of India and others vs. Vijay Kumar in CWP CWP-24010--

08.11.2023 and the judgment passed by the Supreme 2023, decided on 08.11.2023,

Court in The Director (Administration and HR) KPTCL and others vs.

C.P. Mundinamani and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 401,, which we

have noticed in the judgment dated 15.04.2024 passed by this Court in

CWP-14857 14857-2023 titled tled as Jagdish Rai Gupta vs. State of Haryana

and others, others we intend to dispose of this petition in the same terms for

the purpose of disposal.

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098118-DB

CWP-18038-2024 2024 (O&M) -2-

4. It would be apposite to quote the order passed by us earlier on

15.04.2024 in Jagdish Rai Gupta (supra), which iis as under:

"7. 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.

8. Petitioner has retired on 31st of March of the concerned year. Annual increment is to be granted to an concerned 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 purpose of grant of increment.

Since the petitioner, who retired on 31st of March of the concerned year, has completed 09 months of service in a year, he was entitled to receive the benefit of increment for one year. Having reached to the aforesaid finding, we ffind 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).

9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as above.

10. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner would be entitled to one increment and the respondents are directed to revise his retiral benefits and pension accordingly.

11. Said exercise shall be completed within a per period of three months."

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098118-DB

CWP-18038-2024 2024 (O&M) -3-

5. The facts of the present case are also similar, and the petitioner petitioners herein

too have been denied one increment to which they were entitled in

terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court.

6. In the circumstances, it is directed that the petitioners would be entitled

to one additional increment at the time of retirement, and the

respondents are directed to revise their retiral benefits and pension

accordingly.

7. As we are deciding the writ petition at this stage itself without asking

the respondents pondents to file reply on account of question of law having been

settled, we direct that while implementing our orders, the concerned

authority shall examine the service record of the petitioner petitioners with regard

to the entitlement of increment as per our judgment supra, and if the

petitioner fall in the same category, the orders shall be passed, the petitioners

pension shall be revised accordingly and arrears shall be released

within a period of three months. However, However, the petitioner petitioners would not be

entitled to any further interest on the arrears.

8. Writ Petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms.

(SANJEEV SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE August 01,, 2024 Mohit goyal

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

2. Whether reportable? Yes/No

3 of 3