An employee is entitled to an annual increment earned prior to retirement, as clarified by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J.

1. Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

3. Petitioner serving as Associate Professor in the respondent-Education Department retired on 31.12.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation. In this petition, the petitioner is claiming increment for one year of service rendered by him preceding the date of his retirement i.e. for the period of 12 months, which was actually due to him on 01.01.2020. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner reads as under:-

(a) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be passed directing the respondent to decide the pending representations annexed as Annexure P-3 & P-6 made to respondent No.2.

(b) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may be passed directing the respondent to grant on yearly increment to the petitioner after completion of one year of service as on 31.12.2019 which was due to him on 01.01.2020 after serving for one complete year and further the respondent may refix the last pay drawn of the petitioner accordingly and also pension and other monetary benefits is refixed after taking into account the annual yearly increment with all consequential benefits.

(c) The writ in nature of mandamus may kindly be passed with a direction to the respondent to extend the benefit of annual yearly increment in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 arising out of SLP No. 6185 of 2020 titled as The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others decided on 11.4.2023 and also the various judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court based on the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India.”

4. Grievance of the petitioner is that his representations at Annexures P-3 (Colly) and P-6 seeking the above reliefs have 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 the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023 & SLP (C) No. 6185/2020 decided on 11.04.2023 wherein it was held that an employee is entitled to the annual increment, which he earned on the last date of his service for rendering services preceding one year from the date of his retirement with good behaviour and efficiently:

(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 06.09.2024more particularly vis-a-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,