MEHDI HASAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a Private Secretary in the High Court and whose date of birth is 1 July 1954 and who retired on 30 June 2014, has filed this petition claiming increments that were due from 1 July 2014.

(2.) Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the date of retirement of the petitioner may be 30 June 2014 but the last working day of the petitioner would be 1 July 2014 and, therefore, if any increment became due on 1 July 2014, the same should be granted to the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Banerjee Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1990 AIR(SC) 285 and Division Bench decisions of this Court in Mohd. Hussain Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 126 FLR 117 and Ram Anjore Singh Vs. Union of India & Others,2007 3 LBESR 3.

(3.) Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that since the date of birth of the petitioner is 1 July 1954, he would retire on 30 June 2014 and, therefore, would not be entitled to any increment that became due on 1 July 2014. The submission is that the decision in Ram Anjore Singh would not be applicable as that was a case relating to grant of pension with effect from 1 July 1996, even though that person retired on 31 December 1995. Likewise, the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Banerjee would also not apply as it dealt with the interpretation upon Rule 5(2) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (the Rules). Learned counsel has submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Achhaibar Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2008 2 SCC 639 would be applicable to the facts of the case as it has been categorically held that a person born on 1 July would retire on 30 June. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Prabhu Dayal Sesma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1986 AIR(SC) 1948.