Dr. Amarejeet Singh v. State Of Haryana And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH (232) Date of Decision : March 07, 2024 Dr. Amarjeet Singh .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present:
Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
Ms. Swati Dayalan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) 1.
In the present writ petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner is that he had competed 12 months of service prior to retirement but he has not been given annual increment of the same on the ground that the petitioner was to be given the benefit of annual increment from next day of his retirement.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 titled as The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and others vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others, decided on 11.04.2023.
3.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India deals with the grant of
annual increment on competion of 12 months of service but the rules which have been considered in the said judgment, are not para materia to the rules governing the service in the State of Haryana hence, once the petitioner was not in service on the day when the increment became due, the benefit of increment has rightly been denied by the respondents. 4.
5.
The question raised in the present writ petition is that whether an employee who completes 12 months of service prior to the retirement, will be entitled for the benefit of increment of the said service or not and whether action of the respondents in denying the said benefit on the ground that on the day when the said increment was to be given, the petitioner was not in service and had retired, is valid or not. The said question has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.P. Mundinamani's case (supra). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-
!
"#$ % !
&'( "#$ %)
)
*
) * *
* + *
, - * !
"#$ %
*
.)
*
/
0 1 ) 2 /
/2 /
3 /
+
+ * 4 5 /
2)
$ %6 (
7 8 9: $;
2 $% < #=#>?-# > -.# -#-#%6 )*/
< 9@8 4 9: 4 $;
)<
.->>?-#-# ->#-#- %6 5 2 /
A 8 1 4 98 52 6 4 /
)0!)
3 19"8 4) $;
2 < BB =?-#-# .##B-#- %6 @ /
8 7 @ 9 + : 8 $C
2 ) < DD?-#- % +
+*
0 1 ) 2 /
+
* *
?
"< * *
*
*
!
"#$ %
*
* * =< * *
*
*@
* )
*
+ ?
*
*
$ % 5
*
* ?
7 8 $ %
-# -.-" ( /
* &'
$ -#% 2
* 0! 8!
8 $2 %!
20! >$- % *
) * *
*
)
".
8!
*@ * *
)
= 8!
+
)
= = 8!
*
*
, $ -.%)
E
* * *
* *
* *
*@ *
* *
* * , $ -"%
* *@ **
.# F *
* *
*
*
* *, .# F ?* *
* )
"
*
)
= 8! *
*
, )*/
<9@8
$ % *
-" &'-"C
* * *
*
* * *
G *
* *@ * *
.# F * * *
*
*
* * .# F ?* *
* )
"
*
)
= 8! *
*
, B8 * * /
7 @ /
52 /
4 /
5 /
) * * !
"#$ % !
?
*
*
* ) * * * *
)
*
?
* *
*
+* 0 1 ) 2 /
*@
*
* *
, * * * )
*
*
*
* ;
+* 5 /
2)
$ %6 (/
7 8 $ %6 )*/
<9@8 $ %6 52 /
A 8 1 $ %6
/
)0!)
3 1 $ %6 7 @ /
+ :8 $ %;
+* 0 1 ) 2 /
2 ) '7 ) 2 $ % 3 /
: 92 $42$)%<
?-#-# --
-#--% /2 /
/ 2 +98 /2 E $;2< -=#.?-# #
-#-#% B * * ( 1 /
* ;
+* ( 1 /
: * / * , 6.
A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show that the only contention raised on behalf of the Department to object the claim of the employee before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was the same as being raised in the present writ petition.
7.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that even if the increment was to be given from next day of the retirement, still the increment will be admissible once an employee has completed 12 months of service hence, the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.P. Mundinamani's case (supra).
8.
The question that the Rules which were before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India are different as compared to the State of Haryana, the same will not make any difference because the reason for denial of the benefit of increment is the same. In the present case, the reason given for denial of the benefit to the petitioner qua the increment is that the increment being claimed was only admissible on the next day of the retirement and as the petitioner was not in service on the said date, the benefit of increment cannot be granted. The said question has already been decided, which is clear from the above reproduction of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
9.
Keeping in view the above, the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.P. Mundinamani's case (supra) and the writ petition is allowed in above terms.
March 07, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No