Employee who has retired on 31st March is not eligible for Increment on 1st April

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 2503 of 2016 a/w
CWPOA No. 663 of 2020
Reserved on: 02.11.2020.
Decided on: 06 .11.2020.

1. CWP No 2503 of 2016

Hari Prakash …...Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. .....Respondents.

2. CWPOA No. 663 of 2020

Krishan Pal …...Petitioner.

Versus

State of H.P. & anr. .....Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes

For the petitioner : Mr. B. Nandan Vashishta, Advocate for
the petitioner in CWP No. 2503 of
2016.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the
petitioner in CWPOA No. 663 of 2020.

For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General
with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr. Shiv Pal
Manhans, Addl. AGs, Ms. Bhupinder
Thakur, Ms. Seema Sharma and Mr.
Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Dy. AGs for
respondents No. 1,2,4 and 5 in CWP
No. 2503 of 2016 & for respondents
No. 1 and 2 in CWPOA No 663 of
2020.
Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, CGC, for
respondents No. 3 and 6 in CWP
No. 2503 of 2016.

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Whether an employee who retired on 31st of a month is entitled to the increment which would have fallen due on 1st of the next month is the question involved in the Civil Writ Petition No. 2503 of 2016.

2. Petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant in the Department of Industries (Geological wing) on 1.3.1968 in the pay scale of Rs. 250-550. He retired as Senior Hydrogeologist on 31.3.2003 in the pay scale of Rs. 10025-15100(pre-revised). His grievance is that even after rendering twelve months of continuous service from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003, he has been retired without giving him the benefit of one increment which was due to him on 1.4.2003. A petition preferred in this regard by the petitioner (T.A No. 530/2015) has been dismissed by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal on 8.8.2016. Aggrieved, instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

“I. To quash Annexure P-10, the order passed by Hon’ble H.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 8.8.2016 whereby the TA of the petitioner has been dismissed without giving due considerations to the grounds raised by the petitioner in TA.

II. To strike down the offending part of impugned provision of R 56(a) of Fundamental Rules being unconstitutional to the extent it causes undue hardship and is discriminatory to the petitioner as it deprives him from getting the benefit of due and legitimate one increment even after rendering 12 months continuous and uninterrupted service for the reason that his date of birth falls on 1st April which also happens to be his date of next increment.

III. Or in the alternative, the Respondents No.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to grant necessary relaxations in favour of the petitioner by invoking the provision of FR-5-A as undue recurring financial hardship has been caused to the petitioner in his pension and pensionary benefits and thereby enabling the petitioner to get the benefits of one increment since the petitioner has already rendered 12 months continuous and uninterrupted service in the time scale of his post but on superannuation, has been illegally deprived of the benefits of one increment due to the wrong interpretation of FR 56(a) by the Respondents, with further prayer to grant consequential necessary benefits flowing therefrom alongwith admissible interest on the arrears accruing thereto”.

To know more in details find the attachment file