2025:HHC:3224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.1099 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.02.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Anil Kumar Sood ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “a. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be passed directing the respondent to decide the pending representation dated 5.5.2024 annexed as Annexure P-5 (colly) made to respondent No.3. b. That the writ in the nature of mandamus may be passed directing the respondent to grant on yearly increment to the petitioner after completion of one year of service as on 31.7.2024 which was due to him on 1.8.2024 after serving for one complete year and further the respondent may refix the last pay drawn of the petitioner accordingly and also pension and other monetary benefits is refixed after taking into account the annual yearly increment with all consequential benefits. с. The writ in nature of mandamus may kindly be passed with a direction to the respondent to extend the benefit of annual yearly increment in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble - Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 arising out of SLP No.6185 of 2020 titled as The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others Vs C.P. 2025:HHC:3224 2 Mundinamani and others decided on 11.4.2023 and also the various judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court based on the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India.” 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 as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Mukul Sood, 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 employees are entitled to regular increment which he earns on the last day of his service by rendering service preceding one year from the date of his retirement, but yet prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of such relief through 2025:HHC:3224 3 representation (Annexure P-5) is not being considered and decided on one pretext or the other. 5. Petitioner herein was initially appointed as Art and Craft Teacher vide order dated 16.07.2002 and thereafter he superannuated on 31.07.2024 after rendering more than 22 years of service with unblemished record. Last increment due to the petitioner after putting one year of service before his retirement on 31.07.2024 was due on 01.08.2024, 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-5), 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. Mukul Sood, 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 2025:HHC:3224 4 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. 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. February 24, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge