Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jage Ram vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 May, 2024

Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063208-DB




CWP-14682-2023
          2023 (O&M)                                                                          -1-


107
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                       CWP-14682-2023 (O&M)
                                                     Date of Decision: 07.05.2024
                                                                            .2024
Jage Ram
                                                                         . . . . Petitioner
                                         Vs.
State of Haryana and others
                                                                      . . . . Respondentss
                       ****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
                       ****

Present     Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana.

                       ****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue raised in the present

petition stands finally adjudicated by this Court in the case of Hum

Bahadur vs. State of Haryana and others in CWP CWP-8201-2024 2024 and

15.04.2024, wherein we held as under:

connected matters, decided on 15.04.2024

"6. 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 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.

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 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

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063208-DB

CWP-14682-2023 2023 (O&M) -2-

completion of the year as on 1st of July July of every year and 1st of January of a year.

8. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed as above.

above."

2. Accordingly, we find that in this case too, the petitioner retired on

30.06.2007. He would therefore be entitled for one increment.

Accordingly, his pension pension and retiral benefits shall be revised and shall

be released within a period of three months.

3. Writ Petition stands allowed accordingly.

4. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

(SANJEEV SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SHARMA) JUDGE

((SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE May 07,, 2024 Mohit goyal

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No