IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

275 CWP-17062-2023 (O & M)

Date of decision: 04.02.2025 Roop Chand Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Arun Gupta, DAG, Punjab.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the respondents to grant annual increment, revised pension and arrears of pension to the petitioner.

2. Reliance in the present petition was placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-32598-2019, titled as ‘Gurdev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab which was allowed on 16.03.2022, alongwith connected cases.

3. The plea raised in the written statement was merely that the said judgment has been stayed in LPA-696-2022, which now stands dismissed on 09.04.2024, relevant paras whereof read thus:

2. Resultantly, the relief claimed as such for grant of one notional increment which had not been extended to the respondents-writ petitioners as they had retired from service a day earlier was granted to them while keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 4.7 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume 1 Part 1. The reliance upon Rule 4.9-A of the Rules ibid by the State was as such distinguished and the benefit as such was granted with a direction that the last drawn pay at the time of retirement and pensionary benefits be re- calculated. The respondents-writ petitioners were not held entitled for any arrears prior to the date of filing of the writ petitions as agreed by them on the basis of consent and re- fixation was to be done within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of the order with the release of actual arrears within a period of one month.

3. The present appeals are also barred by around 43 to 621 days’ delay in filing and 04 to 71 days’ delay in re-filing. It has been brought to our notice that while dealing with the said bunch, CWP-22679-2020 titled Hari Sharma and others Vs Principal Secretary and others was also decided. LPA- 139-2024 filed by the State already stands dismissed by another Coordinate Bench on 16.01.2024 while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & others Vs C.P.Mundinamani and others, 2023 AIR (SC) 1956. The relevant portion reads as under:-

“(3) The afore issue stands settled in the employees’ favour by the Supreme Court in its recent decision dated 11.04.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 (SLP (C) No.6185 of 2020) – The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & others vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others. The relevant portions of the said judgment are reproduced below for reference : -

“6.5 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that as the increment has accrued on the next day on which it is earned and therefore, even in a case where an employee has earned the increment one day prior to his retirement but he is not in service the day on which the increment is accrued is concerned, while considering the aforesaid issue, the object and purpose of grant of annual increment is required to be considered. A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (one year) with good conduct efficiently. Merely because, the