Mohan Lal Bajaj vs State Of Punjab And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 1588 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mohan Lal Bajaj vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 January, 2024

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009412




CWP-1568-2024                    1            2024:PHHC:009412

128   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                          CWP-1568-2024
                          Date of Decision:24.01.2024
MOHAN LAL BAJAJ                         ......... Petitioner
                      Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS              ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :   Mr. Ishan Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner.

       Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
            ****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent to

grant notional increment in terms of judgment of Supreme Court in

Supreme Court in Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and others Vs.

C.P. Mundinamani and others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a two Judge

Bench of Supreme Court in Director (Admn. And HR) (Supra) has

settled the controversy involved in the present case. The Supreme Court

has held that benefit accrues on the date of completion of required

service. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:

"20.Similar view has also been expressed by different High Courts, namely, the Gujarat High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Orissa High Court and the Madras High Court. As observed hereinabove, to interpret Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations in the manner in which the appellants have understood and/or interpretated would lead to arbitrariness and denying a government servant the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned while rendering specified period of service with good

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009412

CWP-1568-2024 2 2024:PHHC:009412

conduct and efficiently in the last preceding year. It would be punishing a person for no fault of him. As observed hereinabove, the increment can be withheld only by way of punishment or he has not performed the duty efficiently. Any interpretation which would lead to arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness should be avoided. If the interpretation as suggested on behalf of the appellants and the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is accepted, in that case it would tantamount to denying a government servant the annual increment which he has earned for the services he has rendered over a year subject to his good behaviour. The entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day. 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.We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria (supra); the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal (supra); and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra).We do not approve the contrary view taken by the Full Bench of

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009412

CWP-1568-2024 3 2024:PHHC:009412

the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh (supra) and the decisions of the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India v. Pavithran (O.P.(CAT) No. 111/2020 decided on 22.11.2022) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Hari Prakash v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020).

21.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."

3. Learned counsel for the respondents expressed his inability

to controvert applicability of afore-cited judgment to the present case.

4. The issue stands settled by Supreme Court in C.P.

Mundinamani and others (supra), thus, present petition deserves to be

allowed and accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to

determine claim of the petitioner within 3 months from today.

                                               ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                      JUDGE
24.01.2024
Ali
                   Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No

                       Whether Reportable       Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009412

3 of 3