NARESH KUMAR AND ORS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
CWP/17200/2024 · 2025-07-29
Kuldeep Tiwari, To Be Nominated
Civil Appealbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 69137 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 69137 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
S. No.310 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
**** CWP No.17200 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:29.07.2025 Naresh Kumar and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present:- Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Neha Awasthi, Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Advocate for respondent (UHBVNL-DHBVNL). **** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) The controversy raised in the present petition is with regard to grant of annual increment which has fallen due on the date subsequent to the date when the employee superannuated. Since the increment became payable upon satisfactory completion of one year service, as such, the fortuitous circumstance of it falling due on the day following the superannuation cannot be to the detriment of the appellant. The issue in that regard stands settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Director (Administration and HR) KPTCL and others vs. C.P.Mundinamani and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 401. Review Petition (c) Diary No.36418/2024 filed in the matter also came to be rejected on
18.12.2024. The judgment in C.P.Mundinamani’s case (supra) has been RENU 2025.08.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.17200 of 2024 (O&M) -2- reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. M. Siddaraj (Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023). Further clarification was issued by the Supreme Court through an order dated 20th February 2025, while disposing of miscellaneous applications in the M. Siddaraj’s case, which is reproduced below:-
“Miscellaneous Application Diary Nos. 2400/2024, 35783/2024,“35785/2024 and 35786/2024 Delay condoned. We had passed the following interim order dated 06.09.2024, the operative portion of which reads as under:
“(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after
01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid. (b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be paid.
(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the appellate court. (d) In case any retired employee has filed any application for intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable from the month in which the application for intervention/ impleadment was filed.” We are inclined to dispose of the present miscellaneous applications directing that Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the order dated 06.09.2024 will be treated as final directions. We are, however, of the opinion that Clause (d) of the order dated 06.09.2024 requires modification which shall now read as under: RENU 2025.08.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.17200 of 2024 (O&M) -3-
“(d) In case any retired employee filed an application for intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application before the Central Administrative 2 Tribunal/High Courts/this Court, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable for the period of three years prior to the month in which the application for intervention/ impleadment/ writ petition/ original application was filed.” Further, clause (d) will not apply to the retired government employeewho filed a writ petition/original application or an application for intervention before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court after the judgment in “Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj”1, as in such cases, clause (a) will apply. Recording the aforesaid, the miscellaneous applications are disposed of. We, further, clarify that in case any excess payment has already been made, including arrears, such amount paid will not be recovered. It will be open to any person aggrieved by non-compliance with the directions and the clarification of this Court, in the present order, to approach the concerned authorities in the first instance and, if required, the Administrative Tribunal or High Court, as per law. Pending applications including all intervention/impleadment applications shall stand disposed of in terms of this order. Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary Nos.
38437/2023, 38438/2023, 11336/2024 and 20636/2024 In view of the order passed today in the connected matters, that is, M.A. Diary No. 2400 OF 2024 and other connected applications, the present contempt petitions will be treated as disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate remedies, if required and necessary, as indicated supra. It goes without saying that the respondents shall examine the cases of the petitioners/ applicants in terms of the order passed today and comply with the same expeditiously. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” RENU 2025.08.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.17200 of 2024 (O&M) -4- Since the controversy is no more res integra and the same stands settled vide the orders of the Apex Court (supra), as such the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of annual increment in terms of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani’s case (supra), as has been clarified in the case of M. Siddaraj’s case (supra), vide order dated 20.02.2025. The benefits found due in terms of the afore-said judgment shall be released by the State, to the writ petitioners within a period of three months. The petition stands disposed of, accordingly. ( ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA ) JUDGE (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE July 29, 2025 renu/vs Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2025.08.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh