JUDGMENT :

Saral Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yashwant Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

2. Petitioner through present writ petition has assailed the order dated 17.1.2020, by which, his claim for the grant of one notional increment due on 1.7.2016 has been rejected.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was Water Supervisor (Seench Paryavekshak/Ameen) in the office of respondent No. 6-Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand-2, District Allahabad. The date of birth of the petitioner is 18.6.1956. The petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years retired on 30.6.2016 from the office of respondent No. 6. The service of the petitioner was satisfactory.

4. The further case of the petitioner is that the State Government by Government Order dated 4.5.2010 provided that the 1st July would be the date for fixation of new increment/revised salary. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to one notional increment for a period from 1.7.2015 to 30.6.2016 on 1.7.2016 after retirement for computation of pension. The petitioner claiming notional increment due on 1.7.2016 submitted detailed representation dated 11.9.2019 relying on the judgment of P.Ayyamperumal v. The Registrar and others of Madras High Court dated 15.9.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 15732 of 2017. Accordingly, he prayed that his pension may be revised/refixed. When the petitioner did not receive any reply to the said representation, he submitted a reminder on 9.1.2020 before the respondent.

5. Respondent No. 6 by order dated 17.1.2020 rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of notional increment on two grounds; the petitioner had retired in the afternoon of the last day of service, therefore he was not in service on the day when the increment was due. Secondly, as per Rule 14 of Civil Service Regulations, the last date of service of a Government servant is not counted as a working day, hence the Government servant is retired without completing one year of service before retirement. The said order is impugned in the present writ petition.

6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-State, the ground for denying the claim of the petitioner has been stated in paragraphs No. 4, 5, and 6 of the counter-affidavit wherein it is averred that Rule 56(a) of Financial Hand Book, Vol.II, Part II to IV applies to the Government servant of Uttar Pradesh which provides that every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. It is further stated that any Government Servant, whose date of birth is the first day of the month, upon attaining the age of 60 years would retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month.

7. The further case of the respondent in the counter-affidavit is that Rule 14 of the Civil Service Regulations provides that when an Officer is to retire at a specified age, the day on which he attains that age is reckoned non-working day. Accordingly, it is stated that it is clear from Rule 56(a) of Financial Hand Book, Vol.II, Chapter II to IV and Rule 14 of Civil Service Regulations that Government servant retires without completing one year of service. The further case of the respondent in the counter-affidavit is that judgment of P.Ayyamperumal v. The Registrar and others of Madras High Court (supra) is not applicable as the said judgment has been rendered in the context of rules of Central Government and the judgment referred therein namely State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department, and others v. M. Balasubramaniam, CDJ 2012 MHC 6525, has been rendered in the context of fundamental rules of State of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the judgment of P.Ayyamperumal (supra) is not applicable in the present case as the petitioner is an employee of the Uttar Pradesh Government.

8. In the rejoinder-affidavit, it is stated that the denial of the claim of the pe