Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vijay Kumar Kapur vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 May, 2024

Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064068-DB




CWP-10594-2024
          2024 (O&M)                                                                    -1-


112
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                    CWP-10594-2024 (O&M)
                                                  Date of Decision: 08.05.2024
                                                                         .2024
Vijay Kumar Kapur
                                                                   . . . . 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 Jagdish

Rai Gupta vs. State of Haryana and others in CWP-14857-2023,,

15.04.2024 wherein we held as under:

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 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 service, for the services rendered by him in the preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiency.

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064068-DB

CWP-10594-2024 2024 (O&M) -2-

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.

8. Petitioner has retired on 31st of March of the concerned year. 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 petitioner, who retired on 31st of March of the concerned year, has completed 09 months of service in a year, he was entitled 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) KPTCL and others (supra).

9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as above.

10. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner would be entitled to one increment and the respondents are directed to revise his retiral benefits and pension accordingly.

11. Said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months."

months.

2. Coming to the facts of the case, we find that the petitioner has retired

on 31st of January, 2007 and in terms of the Rules, as he has completed

more than six months of service, he would be entitled for the next

annual increment as on 1st of July 2007.

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064068-DB

CWP-10594-2024 2024 (O&M) -3-

3. In view of above, the provisions of Rule 4.7 of the Punjab Civil

Services Rules, 1953 1953 (as applicable to Haryana) be read with the

interpretation as laid down hereinabove by us.