Balwinder Singh vs The State Of Punjab And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 9938 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Balwinder Singh vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 8 May, 2024

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063906




CWP-19630-2023                   1

251
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CWP-19630-2023
                                        Date of Decision:08.05.2024

BALWINDER SINGH                                           ......... Petitioner

                                     Versus

THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS                            ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :   Ms. Gitanjali Chhabra, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

                   ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. On 05.09.2023, the following order was passed:

"The petitioner, who has retired from the post of Assistant Sub Inspector from Punjab Police on 30.4.2021, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant one notional increment as on 1.5.2021 having completed one year service after grant of last increment and further prays that pensionary benefits after giving the aforesaid increment be ordered to be revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although as on the date of retirement i.e. 30.4.2021, the petitioner had already completed 12 months from the day when last increment had been granted, but the respondents have not granted such increment though Rule 4.7 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part - I clearly envisages for the same and increment is to be granted upon completion of 12 months of service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case of the petitioner is fully covered by judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.32598 of 2019

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063906

titled as Gurdev Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another decided on 16.3.2022 (Annexure P-5) as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 titled as The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others Versus C.P. Mundinamani and others decided on 11.4.2023 (Annexure P-6).

Notice of motion for 28.2.2024.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab, upon whom an advance copy of petition had already been served, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent- State.

The State to file a reply on or before the next date of hearing."

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

Bench of Supreme Court in Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and

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

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063906

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 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).

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063906

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
08.05.2024
Ali
                   Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No

                      Whether Reportable        Yes/No




                                 4 of 4