HARI PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an employee who retired on 31st of a month is entitled to the increment which would have fallen due on 1st of the next month is the question involved in the Civil Writ Petition No. 2503 of 2016.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant in the Department of Industries (Geological wing) on 1.3.1968 in the pay scale of Rs. 250-550. He retired as Senior Hydrogeologist on 31.3.2003 in the pay scale of Rs. 10025- 15100(pre-revised). His grievance is that even after rendering twelve months of continuous service from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003, he has been retired without giving him the benefit of one increment which was due to him on 1.4.2003. A petition preferred in this regard by the petitioner (T.A No. 530/2015) has been dismissed by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal on 8.8.2016. Aggrieved, instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3(i). In support of his claim of the increment immediately falling due post retirement, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in WP No. 15732 of 2017, titled P. Ayyamperumal vs. Registrar, CAT decided on 15.9.2017, wherein it was observed that on completing one year of service from 1.7.2012 to 30.6.2013, the petitioner therein became entitled for the benefit of increment, which accrued to him 'during that period' though the increment fell due on 1.7.2013 when he was not in service. The relevant extract from the judgment is reproduced hereinafter: