Punjab-Haryana High Court
Savita Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102079
CWP-18992-2024 - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
110
CWP-18992-2024
Date of decision: 08.08.2024
Savita Kumar and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Umesh Narang and Mr. Chandra Sekhar, Advocates
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer in the present petitions is for directing the respondents to
grant the benefit of one increment on completion of twelve months of service
before retirement i.e. Ist July of every year.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his case is covered on
all fours by the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Suresh Kumar
Singla and others vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-8364-2024, decided
on 16.04.2024, while reading down Rule 10 of the Haryana Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, held the petitioners therein entitled to one increment,
the relevant paras whereof read thus:
"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
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102079
CWP-18992-2024 - 2-
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 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."
xxx xxx xxx
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State fairly concedes that
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102079
CWP-18992-2024 - 3-
the issue stands already adjudicated, and has also pointed out
that the Division 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.
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)
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102079
CWP-18992-2024 - 4-
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." (Emphasis Supplied)
3. 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.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the present petitions are disposed of in terms
of the judgment passed in Suresh Kumar Singla (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
08.08.2024
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
