Extension in service beyond superannuation under Article 229 entitles employee to annual increment per handbook distinguishing it from re-employment, prevailing over instructions denying pay increase; state cannot discriminate as model employer. (32 words)

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ.

The writ petitioner seeks grant of annual increment w.e.f. 01.11.2022 with all consequential benefits.

2. The State vide its communication addressed to the Registrar General, dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure R-2/B) has stood by its earlier communication dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure R-2/A) and has clarified that the Finance Department’s instructions dated 23.06.2015, would cover the matter and that an employee during the period of extension in service beyond the superannuation date would not be entitled for the benefit of increment.

3. The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that he was granted extension in service in public interest, vide order dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure P-1) by the then Chief Justice, while exercising the powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, for a period of one year, since he was due to retire on 31.08.2022. The said order specified that the benefits of scale, pay, special pay and grade pay which were held by him at the time of superannuation, were also to be admissible with all consequential benefits.

4. It was in such circumstances argued that the stand as such of the State to fall back on the instructions dated 23.06.2015, would not be justified, wherein the communication had been addressed to the Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and all Administrative Secretaries to the State Government, wherein it was mentioned that increase in pay would not be admissible to a Government employee during the period of extension in service beyond the superannuation date and he would continue to draw the same pay which he was drawing at the time of superannuation and the pensionary benefits were also allowed on the basis of last pay drawn by a government employee.

5. Reliance has been placed upon the provisions of Chapter 22, Clause 22.2 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Vol. II, to draw distinction between extension in service and re-employment and that the Handbook itself provides that all the benefits have to be granted.

6. In this context, the specific averment has been made in Paragraph-8 of the writ petition. In the reply as such to the binding effect of the Handbook as such is only sought to be distinguished on the ground that there are instructions dated 23.06.2015.

7. The learned Counsel for the High Court and the State have also submitted that after the extension in service was granted, a request for creation of a supernumerary post of Additional Registrar was made by this Court on 06.10.2022 (Annexure R-1) and the necessary creation was done on 14.10.2022 (Annexure R-II) on the basis of the said request.

8. It is thus submitted that in such circumstances, the relief as sought for by the petitioner, is not liable to be granted.

9. A perusal of the order passed by the then Chief Justice, dated 25.08.2022, reads as under:-

“In exercise of the powers conferred on him under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, Hon'ble the Chief Justice is pleased to order that Shri Prem Chand Verma, Principal Private Secretary to Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who is due to retire from service w.e.f. 31st August, 2022 (AN), on attaining the age of superannuation, is granted extension of service in the public interest for a period of one year w.e.f. 1st September, 2022, in the scale, pay, special pay and grade pay presently held by him with all conseque