The short but interesting point which arises in these petitions is ‘whether the petitioners who retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation can claim the benefit of an annual increment, which did not accrue while they were in service?’

2. The petitioners are retired employees of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. Detailed reference to the factual aspect of the service rendered is unnecessary. The relevant service particulars are the following:

Sl. No.	Name of the petitioner	Designation	D.O.B.	Date of entry into service	Date of retirement	Date of next increment
1.	G. Raju	Assistant	12.06.1952	01.07.1980	30.06.2012	01.07.2012
2.	Sri Sidda Shetty	Senior Assistant	05.03.1952	07.05.1973	31.03.2012	01.04.2012
3.	Sri C.P. Mundinamani	Assistant	12.03.1947	11.02.1969	31.03.2005	01.04.2005
4.	Sri C.H. Barki	Junior Engineer (Ele)	13.03.1947	21.04.1976	31.03.2005	01.04.2005
5.	Sri V.N. Malode	Junior Engineer (Ele)	15.04.1949	17.09.1971	30.04.2007	01.05.2007

3. The petitioners claim that they having rendered 365 days of continuous service as on the date of their respective retirement are entitled for the benefits of annual increment which became due on the very following day of retirement. The petitioners contend that they are entitled to be sanctioned and paid annual increment for the last year of service rendered. The claim made by 2nd petitioner having been turned down by issuance of an endorsement dated 21.12.2012 vide Annexure-H, all the petitioners being similarly placed, filed these petitions for quashing the said endorsement and for issuing a writ of mandamus against the respondents to grant one annual increment and extend all the monetary benefits.

4. Sri K. Srinivasa, learned advocate contended that the petitioners having rendered uninterrupted service prior to the dates of their respective retirement, earned the annual increment and the non-sanctioning of such increment amounts to withholding of increment, which is nothing but an act of penalty. He submitted that the increment which was earned by putting 12 months’ continuous service cannot be denied on the ground that the petitioners retired from service on the last day of the 12th month i.e., a day prior to the date on which the increment would have accrued in the ordinary course. Placing reliance on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PENSIONS AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, NEW DELHI & OTHERS Vs. R. MALAKONDAIAH & OTHERS, 2002 (4) ALT 550 (D.B.), he contended that the petitioners have been deprived of their duly entitled benefit of one annual increment without any justification.

5. Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, learned advocate for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that the annual increment would be sanctioned from the day following that on which it is earned, as per Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ Service Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’) and, as the petitioners retired from service before the date on which the annual increment became due, the increment could not be sanctioned. He submitted that all the petitioners being similarly placed, endorsement issued to the 2nd petitioner vide Annexure-H is applicable to all, as all of them fall under the same category. He also raised the issue of delay and laches in filing of these petitions, particularly by the petitioner Nos. 3 to 5, who retired during March, 2005/April, 2007.

6. Considered the rival contentions and perused the writ record.

7. A person who joins service would be entitled to future increment in scale of pay on the anniversary day of his appointment. In other words, the future increment would be reckoned on the first day of the month after completion of one year from the date the employee was appoi