Point of Law : Term “extension” is different from the term “re-employment”. Extension in service is continuance in service and the incumbent does not superannuate or retire on reaching the date of superannuation.

ORDER :

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following relief :

“That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the order dated 25.4.2014 issued by respondent No.1 thereby rejecting the representation made by the petitioner seeking grant of regular increment and further the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to award the regular increment to the petitioner w.e.f. July, 2013 as per the instructions issued by the State Government of Himachal Pradesh contained in Chapter 22 of the Handbook of Personnel Matters with all consequential benefits and further the interest @ 12 % per annum from the date it fell due till its realization may be granted on the amount fell due after summoning the entire record and justice be done.

2. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, he was appointed, as Patwari in the month of February, 1983, thereafter he was selected, as Kanungo, in the month of March, 1984. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar and later on appointed, as Tehsildar. The petitioner retired on 31.5.2013, as Tehsildar, Paonta Sahib, however keeping in view his service career, the petitioner was granted extension of service for one year w.e.f. 1.6.2013 to 31.5.2014. As per the Notification dated 30.5.2013, the period of extension shall not be entitled to the petitioner for any additional increment/additional financial benefits, except last pay drawn on 31.5.2013, but the regular increment has not been denied/debarred, as per the instructions of the State Government of Himachal Pradesh, during the period of extension, the petitioner is entitled to grant increment to full pay and allowances and the said period of extension is counted for qualifying service for the purpose of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits. Since, the petitioner was not granted the regular increment, which was due to him in the month of July, 2013, he made a representation to respondent No.1/competent authority, but respondent No.1/competent authority did not take any decision upon the said representation made by the petitioner. The petitioner again made a representation on 7.2.2014, the same was rejected and communicated to him vide letter dated 25.4.2014.

3. Reply to the petition has been filed and it is averred that the petitioner was superannuated as Tehsildar on 31.5.2013 and one year extension in service was granted to him w.e.f. 1.6.2013 to 31.5.2014 with the condition that during the period of extension, he will not be entitled for any additional increment/additional financial benefits except last pay drawn as on 31.5.2013 and as such, the instant petition is not maintainable and prays for dismissal of the same.

4. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was granted extension for a period of one year w.e.f. 1.6.2013 to 31.5.2014, to the post of Tehsildar, as he has served the respondents-department and so, he was entitled for the increments and other consequential benefits being a modular employee. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgments in 1998 (5) Supreme Court Cases 87, titled Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh vs. Hari Om Sharma and others and in 2017 (9) Supreme Court Cases, 395, titled State of Punjab and another vs. Dharam Pal, on this aspect.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that when the extension for a period of one year was granted to the petitioner, he shall not be entitled for any additional increment/additional financial benefits except last pay drawn on 31.5.2013. He has further argued that as the aforesaid law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is only for a promotional benefits and not for the extension period after retirement, and so the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argu