Kanta Chaudhary vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

i) “That the impugned action of the respondents in not allowing the benefit of one increment to the petitioner which has been earned by her on the last day of service rendered in the year, 2015 may be quashed and set aside while issuing writ in the nature of certiorari.

ii) That the respondents may be directed to grant one increment to the petitioner which has been earned by her on the last day service rendered in the year 2015 and consequently revise her pension and other pensionary benefits and pay the entire arrears thereof with interest @ 9% while issuing writ in the nature of mandamus.”

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a TGT Arts Teacher on 12.08.1986. She superannuated from the service of the respondents on 31.12.2015. Her grievance is that the increment which was to fall due on 01.01.2016 has been denied to her on the ground that the petitioner superannuated a day before the increment was to accrue.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is no more res-integra and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others versus C.P. Mundinamani and others, 2023 SCC online SC 401, has been pleased to hold that a government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency and, therefore, the increment as it is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual increment and merely because a government servant has retired a day before the annual increment is actually conferred the same can be denied.

Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that though, it is a matter of record that the petitioner retired on 31.12.2015, however, as the increment was due on 01.01.2016 and as the petitioner was not in service as on 01.01.2016, therefore, there is no illegality in the act of the respondents of not granting the annual increment to the petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that denial of increment to the petitioner simply on the ground that she superannuated one day before the increment was due is not sustainable in law.

In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred to hereinabove, the increment is earned by an employee on account of the service which she renders in the preceding year before the increment is actually granted to an employee. This means that it was the conduct of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2015 upto 31.12.2015, which was relevant for the purposes of the conferment of increment for her work and conduct for this particular calendar year, which the employer was to confer upon the petitioner on 01.01.2016. Because, the petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2015 and was not in service from 01.01.2016, the same has been denied to him.

This Court is of the considered view that in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL case supra, the denial of the increment to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner superannuated a day before the increment was due is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner rendered the service for the complete calendar year, which was relevant and was to be construed for the purpose of the conferment of the increment. It is not the stand of the respondents that on account of her work and conduct in the preceding calendar year, the petitioner was not entitled for the grant of the increment. Therefore, simply because the petitioner superannuated a day before the increment was due, the increment could not have been denied to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of denying increment to the petitioner which was to fall due on 01.01.2016 on the ground that the petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2015 is declared to be bad and respondents are directed to confer the increment which was due to the petitioner on 01.01.2016 on account of the work performed by him w.e.f. 01.01.2015 to 01.01.2016 with consequential benefits. However, the consequential benefits shall be notional as upto 3 years from the date of the filing of the writ petition by the petitioner, where after the actual benefits shall befall upon the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.