IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.411 of 2025 a/w CWP Nos.1422, 1423, 1424, 1427, 1428, 1429 & 2340 of

2025 Decided on: 04.06.2025 ______________________________________________H____________

1. CWP No.411 of 2025 Union of India & Another ...Petitioners Versus Jagdish Paul Singh Thakur ...Respondent

2. CWP No.1422 of 2025 Union of India & Others ...Petitioners Versus Parkash Chand Rashpa ...Respondent

3. CWP No.1423 of 2025 Union of ICndia & Others ...Petitioners Versus Gilu Ram Dhatwalia ...Respondent

4. CWP No.1424 of 2025 Union of India & Another ...Petitioners i Versus Ratti Ram Kaundal ...Respondent

5. CWP No.1427 of 2025 Union of India & Others ...Petitioners Versus Kishori Lal ...Respondent

6. CWP No.1428 of 2025 Union of India & Another ...Petitioners Versus Davinder Kumar Sharma ...Respondent

7. CWP No.1429 of 2025 Union of India & Others ...Petitioners Versus .

Sunder Singh ...Respondent

8. CWP No. 2340 of 2025 Union of India & Another ...Petitioners Versus Vijay Kumar ...Respondent Coram: o Honble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Honble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1Whether approved for reporting?. Yes.

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India [Senior Advocate] with Mr. Rajeev o Sharma, Advocate, in all the petitions.

For the respondents: Mr. Pawan Gautam and Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocates, for respondent(s) in CWP Nos. 411, 2340, 1424, 1422, 1427, 1428 and 143 of 2025.

g Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate, for respondent in CWP No. 1429 of 2025.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge Union of India and Postal Authorities, being petitioners herein, have come up, before this Court, assailing the orders dated 10.07.2024 [Annexure P-3] [herein referred to as the Impugned Order] passed by Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Bench in Original Application No. 440 of 2024, In Re: Jagdish Paul Singh Thakur versus Union of India and Another, wherein, the Administrative Tribunal, directed the petitioners-Union o.f India to grant one increment to the Respondent(s)-Employee(s) due on 01.07.2018 with all consequential benefits within two months.

2. Since the issue involved in all eight writ petitions are similar, therefore, all these cases are taken up for final adjudication and are disposed of by a common judgment.

3. With the consent of the Learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the CWP No. 441 of 2025, In re: Union of India & Another versus Jagdish Paul Singh Thakur, is treated as the “Lead Case”

H herein.

4. For convenience, a Tabular Chart, which is borne from the records, giving necessary incumbency of the Respondent-Employee(s); date of retirement of Respondent Employee(s); details of Original Applications filed ; and details of Impugned Orders passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal and details of writ petitions filed assailing the Impugned Orders, is recapitulated hereinbelow:-

FACTS IN LEAD CASE O.A No. 440 OF 2024 LEADING TO IMPUGNED ORDER BY TRIBUNAL DATED 10.07.2024 [ANNEXURE P-3]:

4. Respondent-Employee [Jagdish Paul Singh Thakur] being the Original Applicant, in Lead Case, retired from service of the petitioners, as Postal Assistant Circle Office [PACO] from office of Chief Postmaster General, Himachal Pradesh Circle, Shimla, on 30.06.2018.

4(i). Case set up by the Responden.t-Employee is that the annual increment was released to him on 01.07.2017. Thereafter he rendered one years of service from 01.07.2017 to 30.6.2018 without any shortcoming in his work, conduct and performance and upon completion of one years’ service though he had earned the annual increment on 30.6.2018 with its payability w.e.f 01.07.2018 but this benefit was not denied for the purposes of pension on the plea that he stood retired on 30.06.2018 i.e. one day preceding its payability.

4(ii). It was averred that the issue as