IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6947 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Parveen Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shekhar Badola and Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “i. That the petitioner may kindly be held entitled for the grant of yearly increment after completion of one year of services as on 31.12.2023 which was due to her on 01.01.2024 after serving for one complete year and further the respondents may very kindly be directed to re-fix the last pay drawn of the petitioner and the pension and consequential benefits, in light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 1099/2025 titled as “Anil Kumar Sood vs. State of Himachal Pradesh” dated 24.02.2025 and the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 6185/2020 titled as “ The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and Others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Others; ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to calculate and pay the arrears accrued to the petitioner on account of re-fixation after grant of annual increment due to her.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Since it is not in dispute that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings is no more res-integra on account of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023, arising out of SLP(C) No.6185 of 2020, titled as The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and Others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Others, decided on 11.04.2023, there appears to be no justification to call for reply on behalf of respondents, who are otherwise represented by learned Additional Advocate General. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Shekhar Badola, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that annual increment earned by the petitioner on the last date of her service for rendering services preceding one year from the date of her retirement, is not being released/granted for no justifiable reasons. 4. Though Hon’ble Apex Court in C.P. Mundinamani’s case (supra) has already held that employee is entitled to regular increment which she/he earns on the last day of his/her service by rendering service preceding one year from the date of his/her retirement, but yet prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of such relief through representation (Annexure P-1) is not being considered and decided on one pretext or the other. 3 5. Petitioner herein was initially appointed as NTT against the post of JBT in the year 1997 and thereafter, she superannuated on 31.12.2023 after rendering more than 25 years of service with unblemished record. Last increment due to the petitioner after putting one year of service before her retirement on 31.12.2023 was due on 01.01.2024, however, same was not granted to her, as a result thereof, petitioner besides suffering financial loss on account of non- grant of increment is also suffering continuously on account of non- counting of increment in the fixation of pension. Though before filing petition at hand, petitioner herein has approached respondents by way of filing representation (Annexure P-1), but since needful was not done, she is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 6. Having perused judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in C.P. Mundinamani’s case (supra), this Court finds merit in the argument of Mr. Shekhar Badola, learned counsel representing the petitioner that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in C.P. Mundinamani’s case (supra). Moreover, this Court finds that Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in similar facts and circumstances i.e. in Kanta Chaudhary Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, CWP No.2373 of 2024, decided on 29.10.2024 and Kuldip Kumar Vs. Union of India and 4 Others, CWP No.11506 of 2024, decided on 28.10.2024, while placing reliance upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in C.P. Mundinamani’s case (supra), have already issued directions to respondents to grant benefit of increment, if any, due to the petitioner prior to his retirement. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order taking note of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in C.P. Mundinamani’s case (supra). Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 28, 2025 (shankar)