2025:HHC:317 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 8349 of 2024 Decided on : 02.01.2025 Ravi Dutt Sharma and another. …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) With the consent of the parties, the petition is being disposed of, at this stage. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have primarily prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued quashing the impugned communication/rejection order 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:317 dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure P-5) being patently illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. (ii) That the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to grant the annual increment due to the Petitioner No-1 on 01.05.2024, and to the Petitioner No-2 on 01.12.2019 Registrar espectively and the Pension Payable to the Petitioners be ordered to be re-fixed accordingly. (iii) The respondents may further be directed to pay to the petitioner the consequential increased amount of pension from the date of superannuation, along with the arrears plus interest thereon @ 9% per annum.” 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the increment, which was due on the next date, as from the date of their superannuation, has not been granted to them on the ground that they were not in service as on the day when the increment fell due and in terms of Annexure P-5, the legal notice/representation on behalf of the petitioners, has been rejected by the Authority on the ground that there is no provision for grant of annual increment post retirement on the first day of the succeeding month as per FR. 3 2025:HHC:317 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not in dispute that the increment was due on the very next day, as from the date on which the petitioners superannuated. He submits that this issue is no more res integra and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023, titled The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., dated 11.04.2023, has been pleased to hold that the increment which falls due on the next day as from the date of superannuation of the incumbent cannot be denied and an employee is entitled to the annual increment which he earned on the last day of service for rendering service preceding one year, from the date of his retirement. He further submits that this view has been followed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2005 of 2023, titled Sanjeev Sood Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 12.07.2023 as well as Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in CWP No. 9926 of 2023, titled Ram Kumar Gupta Vs. HPSEB Ltd. and Anr. decided on 24.04.2024. 4. Though learned Deputy Advocate General tried to refer to the response of the respondents but it could not 4 2025:HHC:317 disputed that the issue that an employee cannot be denied annual increment which he earned on the last date of his service for rendering service preceding one year, on the ground that the incumbent was not in service as on the date when the increment fell due, is no more res integra. 5. Accordingly, in light of the fact that said issue is no more res integra, this writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-5 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to grant the annual increment to the petitioners, which fell due on the next day as from the date of their superannuation and their pension etc. be fixed accordingly after grant of annual increment. Let needful be done, within a period of six weeks, failing which, the benefit shall also entail interest from the date of filing of the writ petition, at the rate of 6% per annum. 6. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 02, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)