Employees retiring are entitled to included increments for pension calculations, supporting the principle of reasonableness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA)

Date : 01-12-2025 Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar (Senior Advocate) learned AAG-

4 assisted with Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, learned AC to AAG-4 for the appellants.

I.A. No. 01 of 2024

2. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of about eight months and sixteen days in filing the present memo of appeal.

3. For the reasons as mentioned in the aforesaid interlocutory application, particularly in paragraph nos. 3, 4 5 and 6, I.A. No. 01 of 2024 is allowed.

L.P.A. No. 1184 of 2024

4. The present intra court appeal has been filed by the State of Bihar against the order/judgement dated 02.02.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3460 of 2020 whereby the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to allow the writ petition of the petitioners/respondents directing the State authority to grant them increment notionally to the recon their last pay drawn and retirement benefits shall be re-fix in accordance with the judgement passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar vs. The State of Bihar , reported in 2023(6) BLJ 392

5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits that the Respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 were appointed as Junior Engineer on 05.02.1979 in the Department of Water Resources Development. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 superannuated on 30.06.2011, and all other respondents retired from service with effect from 30.06.2013. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants further submits that the petitioners/respondents were retired in the year 2011 and 2013 respectively and they have claimed increment notionally to recon their last pay drawn and retirement benefits shall be re-fixed. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants further submits that the petitioner/respondent nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 have been retired on 30.06.2013 and petitioner/respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been retired on 30.06.2011 respectively and to decide the representation of the petitioners/respondents for payment of notional increment due to the petitioners/respondents after completion of one year of service from

01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011.

6. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants further submits that they had filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition stating therein that the writ petitioners/respondents claimed increment on the ground that they have completed full one year of service from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, and 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011 respectively, therefore they are entitled to get one increment which is due on 01.07.2013 and 01.07.2011 respectively.

Further, in the writ petition the writ petitioners/respondents claimed that the date of their superannuation should be treated as 01.07.2013 and 01.07.2011 instead of 30.06.2013 and 30.06.2011 respectively. However, in the counter affidavit in the writ petition, the State appellants have claimed that since the petitioners were not in service on 01.07.2013 and

01.07.2011 respectively, they cannot be given benefit of further increment in view of Clause 10 of the Resolution No. 630 dated 21.01.2010 of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit in the writ petition).

7. We have heard the counsel for the appellants at length, the writ Court had passed the order on the basis of the judgment reported in 2023(6) BLJ 392 in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra), referring paragraph-4 of the aforesaid judgment which is quoted hereinbelow:

“4. We would have normally referred the matter for consideration by a larger bench especially since, we are bound by a coordinate bench decision of this Court and the decisions of other High Courts have only a persuasive effect; however strong the persuasion and our inclination to follow the dictum of the other High Court