Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Vidya Devi Moudgil - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others – Respondents
CWP No.8348 of 2024
Decided On : 07-04-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus - Claim for annual increment and pension - Petitioner, a retired Chief Pharmacist, sought increment due on retirement date and re-fixation of pension based on Supreme Court rulings - Court directed consideration of petitioner's case in light of recent Supreme Court judgments regarding entitlement to increments upon retirement. (Paras 2 , 3 , 4 )
(B) Legal Principles - An employee is entitled to annual increment earned on the last date of service for one year preceding retirement, provided they have rendered satisfactory service. (Paras 3 , 4 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner retired on 31.12.2015 and claimed an increment due on 01.01.2016, which was not granted. The Supreme Court clarified that increments should be considered for pension calculations for retirees.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for the notional increment and revised pension in accordance with the Supreme Court's directives.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to the annual increment and revised pension based on the Supreme Court's rulings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the Supreme Court's decisions regarding increments for pension calculations, ensuring that the petitioner receives due consideration.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to consider the petitioner's claim.
JUDGMENT :
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.)
Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.
2. Petitioner, serving as Chief Pharmacist in the respondent-Health & Family Welfare Department, retired on 31.12.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. In this petition, she is claiming increment for one year of service rendered by her preceding the date of her retirement, i.e. for the period of 12 months, which was actually due to her on 01.01.2016. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner read as under:-
“A. That a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued quashing the impugned communication/rejection order dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure P-6) being patently illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
B. That the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to grant the annual increment due to the Petitioner on 01.01.2016, and the Pension Payable to the Petitioner be ordered to be re-fixed accordingly.
C. The respondents may further be directed to pay to the petitioner the consequential increased amount of pension from the date of superannuation, along with the arrears plus interest thereon @ 9% per annum.”
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that her representation/legal notice dated 10.06.2024 (Annexure P-5), seeking the above reliefs, has not been considered by the respondents. The above reliefs have been prayed on the strength of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.,
3(i). It is not in dispute that the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court was clarified under an interim order passed in Union of India & Anr. vs. M. Siddaraj, Miscellaneous Application Diary No.2400/2024 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.4722/2021, order dated 06.09.2024, more particularly vis-à-vis its application to third parties. The order reads as under:-
“It is stated that the Review Petition in Diary No.36418/2024 filed by the Union of India is pending.
The issue raised in the present applications requires consideration, insofar as the date of applicability of the judgment dated 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 , titled "Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and Others", to third parties is concerned.
We are informed that a large number of fresh writ petitions have been filed.
To prevent any further litigation and confusion, by of an interim order we direct that:
(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid.
(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be paid.
(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the appellate preferred, court.
(d) In case any retired employee has filed any application for intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal No.3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable from the month in which the application for intervention/impleadment was filed.
This interim order will continue till further orders of this Court. Howeve
An employee is entitled to an annual increment earned prior to retirement for pension calculations, as established by recent Supreme Court rulings.
An employee is entitled to an annual increment earned on the last date of service, impacting pension calculations.
Employees are entitled to notional increments earned prior to retirement for pension calculations, as established by the Supreme Court.
Employees are entitled to annual increments earned prior to retirement, which must be considered for pension calculations as per Supreme Court directives.
Employees are entitled to annual increments earned prior to retirement, as established by the Supreme Court, affecting pension calculations.
Employees are entitled to annual increments earned prior to retirement for pension calculations, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
Employees are entitled to annual increments earned during the last year of service, even if they retire before the increment date, as established by Supreme Court precedent.
An employee is entitled to an annual increment earned prior to retirement, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
An employee is entitled to the annual increment earned on the last date of service, as established by the Supreme Court.
Retired employees are entitled to increments due at retirement when calculating pension benefits.
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
