The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking an annual increment. The petitioner retired on March 31, 2022, entitling him to the increment due on April 1, 2022. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the court directed the respondents to grant the benefit.
Granted annual increment due on 1.04.2022 and consequential benefits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 2198 of 2024.
Date of Decision : 7 th May, 2024.
Thakur Dass Sharma ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ... .Respondents.
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Avni Kochhar, Dy. A.G., for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).
By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for
grant of following relief:
“That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent tog rant one increment to the petitioner after completing one year from the date of last increment granted on 1.04.2021 and also the direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to grant all consequential benefits after granting the last annual increment to the petitioner in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2471 (SLP© No.6185/2020) titled as Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.”
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
…2…
…3…
7th May, 2024 (jai)
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the annual increment benefit even though it became due on the day next to the date of his retirement.
Whether the Supreme Court precedent in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL applies to the facts of this case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinammani & Ors.Followed¶15
Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinammani & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 SLP(C) No.6185/2020)
Thakur Dass Sharma
State of H.P.
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
