Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Principal Secretary And Others vs Hari Sharma And Others on 16 January, 2024
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005591-DB
2024:PHHC:005591-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( Sr. No.126 ) CM-328-LPA-2024 in/and
LPA No.139 of 2024
Date of decision: 16.01.2024
The Principal Secretary, Govt. of Punjab, Department of Finance (F.D.)
and others
..... Applicants-appellants
Versus
Hari Sharma and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present : Ms. Deepali Puri, Addl. A. G., Punjab
for the applicants-appellants.
***
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
(1) Through the judgment impugned through the present intra court
appeal, a bunch of 23 petitions was allowed by the learned Single Judge.
Challenging the said judgment, the State preferred LPA No.696 of 2022 - State
of Punjab and another Vs. Malagar Singh. Such appeal was filed on
18.08.2022. The present appeal has been filed by the State on 08.01.2024. If
the State could file the intra court appeal in Malagar Singh (supra) in August,
2022, it could have also filed the present appeal at that time. The reasons given
in the application seeking condonation of delay of 621 days in filing of the
present appeal also leave huge unexplained gaps. Thus, we find that the delay
of 621 days in filing of the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005591-DB
CM-328-LPA-2024 in/and [2] 2024:PHHC:005591-DB
(2) Irrespective of the above, through the impugned judgment, the
issue decided by the learned Single Judge is that the respondents could not be
denied the grant of annual increment after they had served for 12 months only
on the ground that on the next day of completion of their service i.e. on the date
of accrual of the increment, they were not in service as on such date they stood
superannuated.
(3) The afore issue stands settled in the employees' favour by the
Supreme Court in its recent decision dated 11.04.2023 passed in Civil Appeal
No.2471 of 2023 (SLP (C) No.6185 of 2020) - The Director (Admn. and HR)
KPTCL & others vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others. The relevant portions of
the said judgment are reproduced below for reference : -
"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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005591-DB
CM-328-LPA-2024 in/and [3] 2024:PHHC:005591-DB
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) 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) In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in C.P.
Mundinamani's case (supra), we are of the opinion that the learned Single
Judge has not committed any error in fact or in law to allow the respondents'
petition
(6) In the light of the above, the appeal is dismissed both on the
ground of delay as also on merits.
(7) No costs.
(DEEPAK SIBAL)
JUDGE
16.01.2024 (DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
sunil yadav JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005591-DB
3 of 3
