IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6943 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shyam Kumar Dogra …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & Anr. … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “i. This Hon’ble court may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the annual increment due to the petitioner on 01.03.2018 and the pension payable to the petitioner be ordered to be re-fixed accordingly. ii. The respondents may further be directed to pay to the petitioner all the consequential benefits (including revised pension commutation, revised leave encashment alongwith pension arrears upto date) alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.03.2018. 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (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 Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Kush Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that annual increment earned by the petitioner on the last date of his service for rendering services preceding one year from the date of his 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 he/she 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-6 colly) is not being considered and decided on one pretext or the other. 5. Petitioner herein was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in the year 1981 and thereafter, he superannuated on 28.02.2018 after rendering more than 37 years of service with unblemished record. Last increment due to the petitioner after putting one year of service before his retirement on 01.03.2017 was due on 3 01.03.2018, however, same was not granted to him, 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-6 colly), but since needful was not done, he 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. Kush Sharma, 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 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. 4 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 he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 28, 2025 (shankar)