ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 02-02-2024 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed directing the respondent to decide the petitioners’ representation in which the payment of annual increment falls due on 1st of July, 2011 and 1st of July, 2013 whereas the petitioners’ retired on 30.06.2011 and 30.06.2013.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this regard decision of Madras High Court was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which this matter has already been decided. Counsel also submits that Hon’ble Patna High Court in case of Shiv Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2023(6) BLJ 392 has decided the said issue and, as such, petitioners are entitled for increment.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that after decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra) there is no scope for the State to decide the same in accordance with the Division Bench.

5. In the light of the submissions made, it appears to this Court that the only issue involved in the present case is that the petitioners were retired on 30.06.2011 and 30.06.2013, whereas their annual increments fall d