Yash Paul Sharma v. State Of Punjab And ORS
(247)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18104 of 2020 Date of decision : 24.05.2023 Yash Paul Sharma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr.N.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order/letter dated 04.09.2020 (Annexure P-8) issued by respondent No.4, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of increment has been rejected. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue stands settled in favour of the employees.
3.
Per contra, Mr. Dhir, learned State counsel, however, submits that view similar to that of Madras High Court was taken by Single Bench of this Court in judgment dated 16.02.2022, which is subject matter of LPA-922-2022, wherein the judgment passed by the Single Bench has been stayed vide order dated 21.10.2022 and is now pending for consideration on 17.08.2023.
4.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case.
-25.
The precise issue involved is as under:- "Where the petitioner has worked for full year but retired on attaining the age of superannuation, a day prior to when the increment was to be paid to him whether he would be entitled for the such annual increment or not?"
6.
This Court must notice that the aforesaid issue already stands finally concluded by the Apex Court in the case of Director (Admin. and HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamni and others, 2023 SCC On Line SC 401, holding as under:- "13.
!"#
$%
!"#&
&
'
&
'
' ' ( '
) * '
!"#
'
-3-
+ &
' ,
- . & /, , /, 0, ( ( ' 1 2,
#3 4
"5 / "#6 !*!789!7 9:
! 9!9!#3 &',
5 & 6 :97789!9!
!+ 9!9#32/,
! 31 ,
&-
"
# "5 / 6 ;;*89!9! :!
!;
9!9#3 < =,
>
$% "?/ &6 @+@89!9#( ( '- . & /, (
'
'
8 ;
6 ' '+
6 ' '
'
'
!"#
'
'
' @ 6 ' '
-4-
'
'=
' &
'
(
8
'
'
" #
2' '
8
<>
" #
9!9: 9 4 , '
$% "9!# A/
' -
> > "/ # /
-
7"9#
'
&
' '
' & : >
'='
'
-5-
& *>
(
& * >
'
'
) "9:# A&
B ''
'
' '
' ' '= ' '
'
' '
) "9 #
' '= ' '
:!C
' '
'
' '
'' )
:!
8''
-6-
'
&
' & *>
'
'
) 7 &',
6 D = >
" #
'
9
$% A9
? '
''
'
''
'
E
'
' '= ' '
:!C
' ' '
' '
''
:!C
8''
-7-
'
&
' & *>
'
'
) 9!
> ' ' , < =, 2/ , 1 , 2, & '
'
!"#
8
'
'
'
& '
'
'
'
&
'
8
' '
' ( '- . & / ,
'= '
''
A ) '
' '
&
'
'
'
' 5
( '
-82,
&34
,
&3&',
&32/ ,
&3 1 ,
'(
"
# &3 < =,
$%
& 5 ( '- . & /,
) )) * + & 0,
, "1 / "
89!9! 99 9!99# , / ,
- % -) .
"5/6 9*!:89!+ !+ 9!9!# 9
' ' 4 . ,
' 5
( ' . , F '
,
'
& 6 7!789!99
' ) 7.
Thereby approving the view already taken by Gujarat High Court, Madya Pradesh High Court, Orrisa High Court and Madras High Court.
8.
In view of the above, present writ petition is allowed. The objection taken by the State counsel with respect to there being an interim order by a Division Bench in a similar case cannot be looked at in view of
-9the fact that the issue has been laid to rest finally by the Apex Court in favour of the employee.
9.
Necessary consequential relief be released in favour of the petitioners within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
May 24, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Anjal Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No