HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 345 of 2022 (S/S) Harpal Singh Yadav ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Mahesh Chandra Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Petitioner claims that he should get pension at Rs. 70,000/- last drawn salary. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner was the Principal in Junior High School, Peeli Padaw, Bahadrabad, District Haridwar. He retired from service on 31.07.2016. His pension was determined on the basis of last drawn salary of Rs. 68,000/-. It so happened that the petitioner did receive a communication made by the respondent no. 5/Deputy Education Officer, Bahadrabad, Haridwar to the respondent no. 4/District Education Officer (Primary Education), Haridwar (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), whereby it was informed that the petitioner’s last drawn salary should be Rs. 70,000/- and accordingly his pension should be paid. When it was not paid, instant petition has been filed. 4. Respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5 have filed their counter affidavit. It is the case of the respondents that the respondent no. 5 had only made a proposal for revising the pension of the petitioner on the ground that his last drawn was Rs. 70,000/-. But, according to the 2 respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5, the last drawn salary of the petitioner was never fixed as Rs. 70,000/-. 5. After 5th Pay Commission, the petitioner was given the benefit of revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and he had been getting his increment on 1st day of January of each year. That is how he got an increment on 01.01.2016. The petitioner may not be entitled to two increments in a year. He was not entitled to another increment on 1st July, 2016. According to the respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5, the proposal submitted by the respondent no. 5 to the respondent no. 4 with regard to revision of pension of the petitioner was considered and it was found that the proposal submitted by the respondent no. 5 to the respondent no. 4 was not correct. The petitioner was not entitled to another increment on 1st July, 2016. Accordingly, salary fixation (Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit) was modified. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent no. 5 has communicated to the respondent no. 4 that the petitioner’s last drawn salary was Rs. 70,000/- on 31.07.2016, therefore, accordingly pension should be fixed. 7. Learned State Counsel would submit that the petitioner was not entitled to two increments in a year. He would submit that although the respondent no. 5 has submitted a proposal for revision of pension of the petitioner on the ground that he was entitled to an increment on 01.07.2016, but, he would submit that the respondent no. 4 examined the proposal and it was found that the proposal was not correct; the petitioner was not entitled to get another increment on 01.07.2016; accordingly, the proposal submitted by the respondent 3 no. 5 to the respondent no. 4 was modified and the last drawn salary of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 68,000/-. 8. Petitioner was getting his increment on 1st day of January of each year, which he received on 01.01.2016 also. He was, in fact, not entitled to another increment in the same year on 1st July, 2016. His last drawn salary on 31.07.2016 was 68,000/-. Accordingly he derived his pension. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has no claim. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. The writ petition is dismissed. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 28.04.2025 Avneet/