Back
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, RAJIV ROY
Shiv Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ. – A retired District Judge claims his annual increment, which normally would have fallen due only on the next day of completion of one full year. He retired on the last date, thus dis-entitling him from the increment, which he would have otherwise been entitled to had he continued in service, with the increment reckoned for last pay drawn to determine his pension.
2. The petitioner, who was appointed as a Munsif was promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 03.01.2019. The petitioner contends that his annual increment falls on the 1st January of every year of service. The petitioner retired on 31.12.2022, and, hence, he was deprived of the annual increment on successful completion of his one year of service between 01.01.2022 and 31.12.2022. The petitioner relies on Annexure-1, judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, the SLP against which was dismissed by Annexure-2 and a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench; the later decision having followed the decision of the Madras High Court.
3. The State does not dispute the fact that the petitioner retired on 31.12.2022, and his annua
Entitlement to annual increments upon retirement is based on completed service and good conduct; denial based solely on retirement timing is arbitrary.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
