✦ High Court of India · 23 Jul 2025

Raj endra Singh Kaint ura and Anot her - - - Pet it ioner v. Hem wat i Nandan Bahuguna Gar hwal Univer sit y and Ot hers

Case Details High Court of India · 23 Jul 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
23 Jul 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,575 words

Universit y, Srinagar, Dist rict Pauri Garhwal. Pet it ioner No. 1 was em ployed as Senior Technical Assist ant while pet it ioner No.2 was em ployed as Syst em Manager. Bot h of t hem ret ired on 30.06.2021. Their dat e of birt h is

17.06.1961 and 18.06.1961, respect ively. According t o t he pet it ioners, due dat e of annual increm ent payable t o t hem was 1st July, however, t hey were denied benefit of increm ent only on t he ground t hat t hey ret ired one day earlier.

2. By m eans of t his Writ Pet it ion, pet it ioners 1 have sought following reliefs: “ ( i) I ssue a writ , order or direct ion in t he nat ure of cert iorari, quashing t he im pugned order dat ed 22.03.2021 passed by respondent no.1 ( Annexur e Nos.5 & 9 t o t his writ pet it ion) . ( ii) I ssue a writ , order or direct ion in t he nat ure of m andam us com m anding/ direct or t he respondent s t o t reat t he ret irem ent dat e of t he pet it ioners as on 01.07.2021 and grant all t he consequent ial benefit s, including t he pensionary benefit and grant not ional increm ent

01.07.2021.”

3. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioners has relied j udgm ent dat ed 31.12.2024 rendered by Coordinat e Bench of t his Court in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) No. 779 of 2024 and subm it s t hat since t he issue is squarely covered by t he said j udgm ent , t herefore, t his writ pet it ion deserves t o be decided t erm s of j udgm ent dat ed 31.12.2024 rendered in t he said writ pet it ion. Para 5 & 6 of t he said j udgm ent are reproduced below: - “ 5. From perusal of t he aforesaid j udgm ent , apparent t hat increm ent is a benefit earned by a Governm ent servant for rendering unblem ished service for a specified period and t he m om ent a Governm ent servant has com plet ed unblem ished service for t he period specified 2 under t he Rules/ Execut ive I nst ruct ions, in a t im e scale, he is ent it led t o t he benefit of annual increm ent . Thus annual increm ent is earned by a Governm ent servant by rendering unblem ished service for a specified period, t herefore, benefit of annual increm ent cannot be denied t o him on t he ground t hat t he said benefit was payable one day aft er his ret irem ent . I n t he case of em ployees of Ut t arakhand Governm ent , increm ent is payable aft er com plet ing unblem ished service for one year; pet it ioner com plet ed one year service on 30.06.2018 and t he benefit of such service was t o be given on 01.07.2018. Denial of benefit of increm ent t o him , m erely because he ret ired on

01.07.2018, would t hus be unj ust and arbit rary. He earned t he t o get annual increm ent by rendering unblem ished service bet ween 01.07.2017 t o 30.06.2018 and his right t o get increm ent got cryst allized upon rendering cont inuous unblem ished service bet ween

01.07.2017 t o 30.06.2018. Thus, t he fact t hat pet it ioner was no m ore in service on 01.07.2018 will m ake no difference and in view of t he law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court , t he right which accrued t o t he pet it ioner on

30.06.2018 upon com plet ing one year unblem ished service, cannot be denied t o him . Thus, t he ground on which pet it ioner’s claim for increm ent was rej ect ed is cont rary t o t he law of t he land. Rule 56 of t he Fundam ent al Rules, referred in t he im pugned order does not help t he case of t he respondent , as it m erely provides t hat a Governm ent Servant shall ret ire from service on t he 3 aft ernoon of t he last day of t he m ont h in which he at t ains t he age of 60 years. Thus, t he reason assigned rej ect ing pet it ioner’s claim for annual increm ent , unsust ainable in t he eyes of law.

6. I n such view of t he m at t er, t he writ pet it ion is allowed and t he im pugned order dat ed 07.11.2024 is quashed. The respondent s are direct ed t o give benefit of annual increm ent , which was payable t o pet it ioner

01.07.2018.”

4. Mr. Kart ikeya Hari Gupt a, learned counsel for t he respondent s subm it s t hat as per Rule 10 of t he Cent ral Civil Services ( Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, t he dat e of increm ent in t he revised pay st ruct ure is fixed as 1 st July of every year. He furt her subm it s t hat t here is no provision for relaxat ion. He furt her subm it s t hat pet it ioners were m ade t o ret ire on last day of t he m ont h in which t hey com plet ed age of superannuat ion, t herefore, t hey are not ent it led t o any furt her benefit .

5. We are not im pressed by t he subm ission m ade by learned counsel for t he respondent s.

6. Hon’ble Suprem e Court t he case of D i r e ct o r ( A d m i n i st r a t i o n a n d H u m a n Re so u r ce s) K PTCL & o t h e r s Vs. C.P. M u n d i n a m a n i & o t h e r s, r e p o r t e d i n ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 4 SCC 4 1 1 , while dealing wit h 4 t he ident ical issue, approved t he j udgm ent rendered by Allahabad High Court in t he case of “ Nand Vij ay Singh & ot hers Vs. Union of I ndia & ot hers”, and held t hat annual increm ent , which a Governm ent Servant has earned for t he services rendered over a year subj ect t o his good behavior, cannot be denied t o him .

7. I n such view of t he m at t er, t he defence t aken t he respondent s- Universit y cannot be accept ed. Accordingly, t he writ pet it ion is decided in t erm s of j udgm ent dat ed 31.12.2024 rendered by Coordinat e Bench in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) No. 779 of 2024. I m pugned order dat ed 22.03.2021 passed by Regist rar, H.N.B. Garhwal Universit y, Srinagar, Dist rict Pauri is hereby quashed. The Com pet ent Universit y is direct ed t o grant benefit of annual increm ent , which was payable t o t he pet it ioners on 01.07.2021. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 23.07.2025 23.07.2025 Raj ni RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac37 01a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4FC8 0D4557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A878B D8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN 5

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments