Union of India and Anr. Vs Davinder Kumar Sharma

( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.411 of 2025 a/w
CWP Nos.1422, 1423, 1424,
1427, 1428, 1429 & 2340 of
2025
Decided on: 04.06.2025

¶4

1.	___________________________ CWP No.411 of 2025	____________	___________________
	Union of India & Another		...Petitioners
		Versus
	Jagdish Paul Singh Thak	ur	...Respondent
2.	CWP No.1422 of 2025
	Union of India & Others		...Petitioners
	Parkash Chand Rashpa	Versus	...Respondent
3.	CWP No.1423 of 2025
	Union of India & Others		...Petitioners
		Versus
	Gilu Ram Dhatwalia		...Respondent
4.	CWP No.1424 of 2025
	Union of India & Another		...Petitioners
		Versus
	Ratti Ram Kaundal		...Respondent
5.	CWP No.1427 of 2025
	Union of India & Others		...Petitioners
		Versus
	Kishori Lal		...Respondent
6.	CWP No.1428 of 2025
	Union of India & Another	Versus	...Petitioners
	Davinder Kumar Sharma		...Respondent

¶5

2 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB ) CWP No.1429 of 2025 Union of India & Others ...Petitioners Versus Sunder Singh ...Respondent CWP No. 2340 of 2025 Union of India & Another ...Petitioners Versus Vijay Kumar ...Respondent

¶6

7. CWP No.1429 of 2025

¶7

8. CWP No. 2340 of 2025

¶8

Coram:

¶9

Honble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Honble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶10

1 Whether approved for reporting?. Yes.

¶11

For the petitioner(s):	Mr. Balram Solicitor Gene Advocate] w Sharma, Adv petitions.	Sharma, Deputy ral of India [Senior ith Mr. Rajeev ocate, in all the
For the respondents:	Mr. Pawan	Gautam and
	Mr. K.B. Sha respondent(s)	rma, Advocates, for in CWP Nos. 411,
	2340, 1424	, 1422, 1427,
	1428 and	143 of 2025.
	Mr. Ashwani for responden of 2025.	Kaundal, Advocate, t in CWP No. 1429

¶12

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶13

Union of India and Postal Authorities, being

¶14

petitioners herein, have come up, before this Court, assailing the orders dated 10.07.2024 [Annexure P-3] [herein referred to as the Impugned Order] passed by Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh

¶15

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

3 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶17

Bench in Original Application No. 440 of 2024 , In Re: Jagdish Paul Singh Thakur versus Union of India and Another , wherein, the Administrative Tribunal, directed the petitioners-Union of India to grant one increment to the Respondent(s)-Employee(s) due on 01.07.2018 with all consequential benefits within two months.

¶18

2. Since the issue involved in all eight writ petitions are similar, therefore, all these cases are taken up for final adjudication and are disposed of by

¶19

a common judgment.

¶20

3. With the consent of the Learned Counsels

¶21

appearing for the parties, the CWP No. 441 of 2025, In re: Union of India & Another versus Jagdish Paul Singh Thakur, is treated as the “Lead Case” herein.

¶22

4. For convenience, a Tabular Chart, which is

¶23

borne from the records, giving necessary incumbency of the Respondent-Employee(s); date of retirement of Respondent Employee(s); details of Original Applications filed ; and details of Impugned Orders passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal and details

¶24

4 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶25

of writ petitions filed assailing the Impugned Orders,

¶26

is recapitulated hereinbelow:-

¶27

Sr. No .	Name and Designation of Employee	Date of Retiremen t	Original Application filed before CAT	Date of Impugned Order passed by Tribunal (CAT) 5.	CWP filed against order of CAT
1.	2.	3.	4.		6
1.	Jagdish Paul Singh Thakur, retired as Postal Assistant Circle Office (PACO) [LEADCASE]	30.06.2018	O.A. No. 440 of 2024.	10.07.2024 Giving Pension w.e.f. 01.07.2018	CWP No. 411 of 2025
2.	Parkash Chand Rashpa retired as Assistant Accounts officer	30.06.2018	O.A. No.858 of 2024.	07.08.2024 Giving Pension w.e.f. 01.07.2018	CWP No.1422 of 2025
3.	Gilu Ram Dhatwalia retired as SPM, BCR (Group-C)	30.06.2008	O.A. No.559 of 2024.	10.07.2024 Giving Pension w.e.f. 01.07.2008	CWP No.1423 of 2025
4.	Ratti Ram Kaundal retired as Assistant Director (Recruitment)	30.06.2017	O.A. No.464 of 2024.	15.07.2024 Giving Pension w.e.f. 01.07.2017	CWP No.1424 of 2025
5.	Kishori Lal retired as Assistant Accounts officer	30.06.2022	O.A. No.857 of 2024.	07.08.2024 Giving Pension w.e.f. 01.07.2022	CWP No.1427 of 2025
6.	Davinder Kumar Sharma retired as Assistant Director (Recruitment)	30.06.2011	O.A. No.455 of 2024.	10.07.2024 Giving Pension w.e.f. 01.07.2011	CWP No.1428 of 2025
7.	Sunder Singh retired as Deputy Postmaster	30.06.2015	O.A. No.736 of 2024.	09.09.2024 Giving Pension w.e.f. 01.07.2015	CWP No.1429 of 2025
8.	Vijay Kumar retired as Assistant Accounts Officer	30.6.2022	O.A. No.329 of 2024.	10.07.2024 Giving Pension w.e.f. 01.07.2022	CWP No.2340 of 2025

¶28

FACTS IN LEAD CASE O.A No. 440 OF 2024 LEADING TO IMPUGNED ORDER BY TRIBUNAL DATED 10.07.2024 [ANNEXURE P-3]:

¶29

4. Respondent-Employee [Jagdish Paul Singh

¶30

Thakur] being the Original Applicant, in Lead Case, retired from service of the petitioners, as Postal

¶31

5 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶32

Assistant Circle Office [PACO] from office of Chief Postmaster General, Himachal Pradesh Circle, Shimla, on 30.06.2018.

¶33

4(i). Case set up by the Respondent-Employee

¶34

is that the annual increment was released to him on 01.07.2017. Thereafter he rendered one years of service from 01.07.2017 to 30.6.2018 without any shortcoming in his work, conduct and performance and upon completion of one years’ service though he had earned the annual increment on 30.6.2018 with its payability w.e.f 01.07.2018 but this benefit was not denied for the purposes of pension on the plea that he stood retired on 30.06.2018 i.e. one day preceding its payability.

¶35

4(ii). It was averred that the issue as to whether the annual increment earned for one years’ service could be denied to an employee became the subject matter in controversy before Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal versus The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal in W.P. No.15732 of 2017, decided on 15.07.2017, [referred to herein as P. Ayyamperumal ], holding that

¶36

6 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶37

an employee retiring on 30^th of June was held entitled

¶38

for one increment. It is averred that SLP (C) Diary No. 22283 of 2018 , against the judgment in case of P. Ayyamperumal was dismissed on 23.07.2018 and even the Review Petition filed by Union of India was also dismissed on 08.08.2019. Even, the Respondent-Employee submitted a representation on 05.02.2019 [Annexure A-2] , to which, the petitionersUnion of India responded that benefit of the judgment in the case of Ayyamperumal, cannot be extended till the Government of India, Ministry of DoPT amends the existing Rules.

¶39

4(iii). It is averred that in view of conflicting judgment(s) of various High Court(s), the issue reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. versus C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. decided on 11.04.2023, herein referred to as C.P. Mundinamani], reported in (2023) 14 SCC 411, mandating that the employee was held entitled for grant of one annual increment which was earned for rendering one year of service preceding the date of retirement with good behavior

¶40

7 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶41

and efficiency. Even before the passing of the judgment in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supr a) , the petitioner submitted another representation on 15.05.2019 [Annexure A-4] requesting the PetitionersUnion of India to extend benefit of these judgments by releasing notional increment w.e.f. 01.07.2018 for purposes of Pension, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, CVP and other retiral benefits, but since nothing was done therefore, the Respondent-Employee filed an Original Application for aforesaid relief(s).

¶42

STAND OF THE PETITIONERS-UOI TAKEN BEFORE TRIBUNAL:

¶43

5. Petitioners-Union of India filed a Reply-

¶44

Affidavit dated 27.05.2024 of Assistant Director, CPMG, Himachal Pradesh Circle, Shimla.

¶45

5(i). Perusal of reply-affidavit indicates that

¶46

Petitioners-Union of India have taken a specific stand that the notional increment was not payable, for the reason, that such increment is due/payable to in service incumbents and since the respondentemployee stood retired, therefore, benefit of increment due to him on 1^st July, 2018 cannot be granted.

¶47

5(ii). Reply-Affidavit further states that as per

¶48

8 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶49

Fundamental Rule 17(1) an employee has a right to draw pay and allowances attached to the post from the date he assumes the duties of that post and shall cease to draw pay and allowances as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. The petitioners-Union of India have relied on Rule 10 of the CCS [RP] Rules 2016 to assert that the annual increment is admissible to an employee on 1^st January or 1^st July of a year depending upon his appointment, promotion or grant of financial upgradation but since the Respondent-Employee stood retired on 30.06.2018 then, the annual increment which became payable to him on 01.07.2018 was not admissible.

¶50

5(iii). Reply-Affidavit states that the judgment(s) in P. Ayyamperumal and C.P. Mundinamani were judgments in personam only and therefore, the benefit of these judgements cannot be given to Respondentemployee(s) herein. It this background, a prayer was

¶51

made for dismissing the Original Application.

¶52

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.07.2024 [ANNEXURE P-3] PASSED BY TRIBUNAL:

¶53

6. After analyzing the factual matrix and

¶54

9 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶55

mandate of law in the cases of P. Ayyamperumal and C.P. Mundinamani and the fact that benefits of these judgments was extended to other similar incumbents, therefore, Learned Central Administrative Tribunal [referred to as the Tribunal] decided the Original Application No. 440 of 2024 on 10.07.2024 [Annexure P-3] in Re: Jagdish Paul Singh Thakur versus Union of India and Another , directing the Petitioners-Union of India, to grant the benefit of one increment to Respondent-Employee w.e.f. 1.07.2018 with all consequential benefits. The operative part of the orders dated 10.07.2024 [Annexure P-3] passed by Learned Tribunal, reads as under:-

¶56

“3. The respondents have filed reply stating that by the time the increment became due to the applicant, he was not in service, therefore, he could not be granted the benefit of notional increment due to him on 1st July.

¶57

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as respondents and perused the material available on record and gone through the judgment of The Director (Admin and HR) KPTCL (supra). The issue involved in the instant O.A has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicant is retired senior citizen and waiting for their rightful claim on the strength of dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court judicial pronouncement.

¶58

The issue of benefit of increment on the last

¶59

10 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶60

date of retirement is no longer res integra after the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in KPTCL (supra). After the aforesaid judgment nothing survives to adjudicate herein. The co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has also allowed various applications vide order dated 02.02.2024 on the similar issue in O.A No. 60/359/2019 and Ors, directed "the respondents to grant the benefit of one notional increment to the applicants due on 1st July or 1^st January of the next years, as the case may be, with all consequential benefits."

¶61

It is evident that the case of applicant is covered on all fours by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of The Director (Admin and HR) KPTCL & Ors Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors (supra). Further, in order to maintain judicial parity, similar order may be passed as given by the co-ordinate Bench in O.A No. 60/359/2019 and Ors, decided on 02.02.2024. In the wake of aforesaid the O.A is allowed with direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of one increment to the applicant due on 1st July, 2018 with all consequential benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶62

There shall be no order so as to costs.”

¶63

IMPUGNED ORDER 10.07.2024 [ANNEXURE P-3] OF TRIBUNAL- IN INSTANT WRIT PETITION :

¶64

7. Petitioners-Union of India had assailed the

¶65

order dated 10.07.2024, passed by Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, in Original Application No. 440 of 2024 in Re: Jagdish Paul Singh Thakur versus Union of India and Another [Annexure P-3], in instant Writ Petition i.e. CWP No. 411 of 2025.

¶66

11 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶67

GROUNDS FOR ASSAILING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.07.2024, [ANNEXURE P-3] PASSED BY TRIBUNAL [CAT] IN INSTANT PROCEEDINGS:

¶68

8. Petitioners-Union of India, has assailed the Impugned Order dated 10.07.2024 [Annexure P-3] passed by the Learned Tribunal, on the ground, that firstly, the Original Application was decided by the Tribunal by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 titled as Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL Ors. versus C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. decided on 11.04.2023, which had not attained finality Petitioner-Union of India has filed a Review Petition which was pending adjudication; and secondly, the Respondent-Employee was not in service and he stood retired on 30.06.2018, therefore, he was not entitled for notional increment in view of Fundamental Rule 17 as well as Rule 10 of CCS [Revised Pay] Rules; and lastly , the judgment(s) in cases of P. Ayyamperumal and C.P. Mundinamani are judgments in personam only and therefore, the Tribunal erred in extending benefit of the aforesaid to Respondentemployee.

¶69

12 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶70

9. Heard, Mr. Balram Sharma, Learned Deputy

¶71

Solicitor General of India for the Petitioners-Union of India and Mr. Pawan Gautam as well as Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate for the respective Respondent-Employee(s); and have gone through the material on record.

¶72

LEGAL RECAP OF THE JUDGMENTS AND DIRECTIONS PASSED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT-AS APPLICABLE IN INSTANT CASES:

¶73

10. Before analyzing the contentions, it is

¶74

necessary to have a recap of the judgments and clarificatory orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time.

¶75

10(i). The issue involved herein, came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani [C.A. No. 2471 of 2023, arising from SLP(s) No. 6185 of 2020] decided on 11.04.2023, reported in (2023) 14 SCC 411, reads as under:

¶76

“11. The short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is whether an employee who has earned the annual increment is entitled to the same despite the fact that he has retired on the very next day of earning the increment?

¶77

Similar view has also been expressed by different High Courts, namely, the Gujarat High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Orissa High Court and the Madras High Court. As observed hereinabove,

¶78

13 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶79

to interpret Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations in the manner in which the appellants have understood and/or interpretated would lead to arbitrariness and denying a government servant the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned while rendering specified period of service with good conduct and efficiency in the last preceding year. It would be punishing a person for no fault of him. As observed hereinabove, the increment can be withheld only by way of punishment or he has not performed the duty efficiently. Any interpretation which would lead to arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness should be avoided. If the interpretation as suggested on behalf of the appellants and the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is accepted, in that case it would tantamount to denying a government servant the annual increment which he has earned for the services he has rendered over a year subject to his good behavior. The entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallizes when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day .

¶80

In the present case the word should be understood liberally and would mean payable on the succeeding day. Any contrary view would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness and denying a government servant legitimate one annual increment though he is entitled to for rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiently and therefore, such a narrow interpretation should be avoided.

¶81

We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria (supra); the Orissa High Court

¶82

14 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶83

in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal (supra); and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra). We do not approve the contrary view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh (supra) and the decisions of the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Pavithran (O.P.(CAT) No. 111 /2020 decided on 22.11.2022) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Hari Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020).

¶84

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently . We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”

¶85

10(ii). After the passing of the judgment on

¶86

11.04.2023 in the case of C.P. Mundinamani & Ors, a similar issue regarding the admissibility of annual increment earned for one years’ service rendered with good behavior and efficiency became subject-matter of Civil Appeal No. 3933 of 2023 [originating from SLP (C) No. 4722 of 2021], In re: Union of India & Anr. versus M. Siddaraj and the same was disposed

¶87

15 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶88

of on 19.05.2023 , reiterating the mandate of law

¶89

in the case of Mundinamani (supra), in the following

¶90

terms:

¶91

“In the Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No. 3933 of 2023

¶92

(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4722 of 2021)

¶93

Union of India & Anr. ...Appellant(s) Versus

¶94

M. Siddaraj ...Respondent(s)

¶95

ORDER

¶96

Applications for leave to appeal in Diary No. 2853/2023 & Diary No. 874/2023 are allowed.

¶97

Delay condoned.

¶98

Leave granted.

¶99

The issue raised in these appeals is squarely covered by a judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 decided on 11.04.2023 titled as Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and Others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Others (2023) SCC Online SC 401 .

¶100

The issue being same, the present civil appeals also stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

¶101

All the intervention applications/ impleadment applications are allowed in the intervenors/impleaded respondents shall also be entitled to the same relief.

¶102

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”

¶103

10(iii). Even after dismissal of Civil Appeal in the case of M. Siddaraj on 19.05.2023, a Miscellaneous

¶104

16 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶105

Application Diary No. 2400 of 2024 was filed, in which, the Honble Supreme Court passed an order on

¶106

06.09.2024 , in the following terms:-

¶107

“SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

¶108

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

¶109

Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400 /2024

¶110

In

¶111

Special Leave Petition © No.4722/2021

¶112

Union of India & Anr. ….Appellant(s)

¶113

Versus

¶114

M. Siddaraj ….Respondent(s)

¶115

ORDER

¶116

It is stated that the Review Petition in Diary No. 36418/2024 filed by the Union of India is pending.

¶117

The issue raised in the present applications requires consideration, insofar as the date of applicability of the judgment dated 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023, titled "Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and Others", to third parties is concerned.

¶118

We are informed that a large number fresh writ petitions have been filed.

¶119

To prevent any further litigation and confusion, by of an interim order we direct that:

¶120

(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.

¶121

17 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶122

(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be paid.

¶123

(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.

¶124

(d) In case any retired employee 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 .

¶125

This interim order will continue till further orders of this Court . However, no who has already received an enhanced pension including arrears, will be affected by directions in (a), (c) and (d).

¶126

Re-list in the week commencing 04.11.2024.”

¶127

10(iv). The Review Petition (C) Diary No 34618 of

¶128

2024, filed in the case of C.P. Mundinamani, was

¶129

dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.12.2024 , in following terms:

¶130

“ Review Petition (C) Diary No.36418/2024 In

¶131

Civil Appeal No(s).2471/2023

¶132

The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors.

¶133

…Petitioner(s)

¶134

Versus

¶135

C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. …Respondent(s)

¶136

ORDER

¶137

18 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶138

The office Report dated 16.10.2024 indicates that this review petition is filed with defects as, the position of the petitioner is not clear as he was not a party in this matter and the petitioner has not filed application for permission to file review petition.

¶139

Moreover, there is inordinate delay of 461 days in preferring the Review Petition, which has not been satisfactorily explained.

¶140

Even otherwise, having carefully gone through the Review Petition, the order under challenge and the papers annexed therewith, we are satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, warranting reconsideration of the order impugned.

¶141

The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of defects, delay as also on merits.”

¶142

10(v). Notably, the Miscellaneous Application No

¶143

2400 of 2024, filed in case of M. Siddaraj , in which

¶144

interim orders were passed on 6.9.2024 was finally disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the clarificatory orders passed on 20.2.2025, in following

¶145

terms:-

¶146

“In the Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

¶147

Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400 of 2024

¶148

In

¶149

Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023

¶150

Union of India & Anr. …Appellant(s)/Appellant(s)

¶151

Versus

¶152

M. Siddaraj ..Non-Applicant(s)/Respondent(s)

¶153

ORDER

¶154

19 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶155

Miscellaneous Application Diary Nos 2400/ 2024 , 35783/2024,35785/2024 and 35786/ 2024

¶156

Delay condoned.

¶157

We had passed the following interim order dated 06.09.2024, the operative portion of which reads as under:

¶158

"(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.

¶159

(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

¶160

(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.

¶161

(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."

¶162

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:

¶163

"(d) In case any retired employee filed an

¶164

20 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶165

application for intervention/ impleadment/ writ petition/ original application before the Central Administrative 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/petition/original application was filed."

¶166

Further, clause (d) will not apply to the retired government employee who 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", as in such cases, clause (a) will apply.

¶167

Recording the aforesaid, the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.

¶168

We, further, clarify that in case any excess payment has already been made, including arrears, such amount paid will not be recovered.

¶169

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.

¶170

Pending applications including all intervention /impleadment applications shall stand disposed of in terms of this order.”

¶171

ANALYSIS :

¶172

11. Taking into account entirety of facts and

¶173

circumstances; and the material on record; and the

¶174

mandate of law in the cases of P. Ayyamperumal and C.P. Mundinamani, which stands affirmed in

¶175

21 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶176

the case of M. Siddaraj (supra) ; this Court is of

¶177

the considered view that the Impugned Order dated 10.07.2024 [Annexure P-3] passed by Learned Tribunal

¶178

in Original Application No. 440 of 2024, giving the benefit of one increment to the aforesaid respondent for the purposes of pension w.e.f. 01.07.2018 with all consequential benefits ; needs to be set-aside with modified directions to the Petitioners-Union of India to release pension by taking into account one annual increment w.e.f. 1.05.2023 with consequential benefits thereafter ; for the following reasons:-

¶179

ENTITLEMENT FOR ONE ANNUAL INCREMENT EARNED FOR ONE YEARS SERVICE EFFICIENTLY WITH SATISFACTORY WORK AND CONDUCTEVEN THOUGH RETIRED:

¶180

11(i). Case of the Respondent-Employee in Lead

¶181

is that the annual increment was released to him on 01.07.2017. Thereafter he rendered one years of service from 01.07.2017 to 30.6.2018 efficiently and without there being any shortcoming in his work, conduct and performance. Upon completion of this service, a right crystallized/accrued entitling him for annual increment earned on last day of his service on 30.6.2018 {with its payability from 1.7.2018}, even

¶182

22 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶183

if Respondent-employee stood retired on very next

¶184

day of earning his increment even then, such benefit could not have been denied to him.

¶185

11(ii). The issue as to whether an employee who has earned the annual increment is entitled to the same despite the fact that he has retired on the very next day of earning increment, stands answered by the Honble Supreme Court in P. Ayyamperumal, [ of Honble Madras High Court, against which SLP © 22283 of 2018 was dismissed on 23.7.2018] ; and this judgement was affirmed by Honble Supreme Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani [after dismissing Civil Appeal No 2471 of 2023 on 11.4.2023] and was further reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of M. Siddaraj [after dismissing Civil Appeal No 3933 of 2023 on 19.05.2023] entitling an employee for one annual increment, which was earned for one years’ of efficient and unblemished service, even though, such an employee stood retired on the next-succeeding day of having earned such increment.

¶186

NON-RELEASE OF EARNED ANNUAL INCERMENT UNSUSTAINABLE ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS DETAILED BELOW:

¶187

23 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶188

11(iii). The Respondent-employee had earned the

¶189

annual increment on completion of one years of past service rendered from 01.07.2017 to 30.6.2018 efficiently and without there being any shortcoming in his work, conduct and performance. Completion of unblemished one years’ service confers and right for annual increment and such an accrued and crystallized right for getting the benefit of earned increment, for past years efficient service cannot be negated or nullified merely due to fortuitous event of his retirement on the next day of having earned such increment. The object and purpose of granting increment is linked to efficiency, good work and unblemished conduct during past one years of service. An annual increment is to be released in the normal course upon completion of one full year of service with efficiency and good behavior and it can be withheld or denied only by a general or special order passed under FR 24 and no such order exists in instant case. The non-release of earned increment is a minor penalty in terms of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and same cannot be resorted to

¶190

24 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶191

without complying with mandate of statutory rules. Withholding of earned increment cannot be invoked to the prejudice or disadvantage of an employee when, nothing adverse exists revealing inefficiency or deficiency in the work, conduct and performance. Even, non-release or withholding of earned annual increment without authority of law is unsustainable. Non-release or withholding of annual increment has certainly visited the respondent-employee herein with civil consequences but without giving a prior notice, without affording a personal hearing which was never done and non-compliance vitiates the action. Merely because the Government servant stood retired cannot be a ground to withhold or deny the annual increment for having rendered one years of service efficiently. Non-payability of increment merely due to the fortuitous event of having retired on the next day despite having earned the said increment certainly amounts to discrimination, arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of an employer. Right to receive the annual increment which had accrued and crystallized on completion of 12 months

¶192

25 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶193

of past service with its payability on the succeeding day after retirement is to be construed liberally. The entitlement of an employee to receive the earned annual increment for past one years of efficient and unblemished service stands affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in the judgements in cases of P. Ayyamperumal, upheld in C.P. Mundinamani, and reinforced in M Siddaraj (supra) and clarificatory orders passed on 06.09.2024 and on 20.2.2025, with resultant benefit of aforesaid one annual increment for pension. The operation and effect of law declared by the Honble Supreme Court needs to be enforced and such accrued right could neither be taken away nor curtailed, restricted or negated by Authorities, so as to deprive the Respondent-Employee of the benefit of one annual increment for pension {in lead case and in all other connected cases w.e.f. 01.05.2023}, in facts of instant case.

¶194

DATE OF ADMISSIBILITY OF ANNUAL INCREMENT FOR PENSION TO PETITIONERS VIS-A-VIS THE NON-PETITIONERS / THIRD PARTIES

¶195

12. Based on judgment(s) passed by

¶196

Hon’ble Supreme Court, in cases of C.P. Mundinamani

¶197

26 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶198

on 11.04.2023 and in M. Siddaraj on 19.05.2023

¶199

and passing of the interim orders dated 06.09.2024 and the final clarificatory orders dated 20.02.2025 in Miscellaneous Application Diary No 2400 of 2024, which was filed in the case of M. Siddaraj (supra) , the issue regarding the date from which benefit of annual increment is to be given for purposes of pension, has been spelt out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in three broad categories, viz is, (i) Succeeded Retirees; (ii) Petitioner-retirees ; and (iii). Non-Petitioners or Third Parties .

¶200

12(i). Category (i) consisted of the “Succeeded Retirees” as in Clauses (b) of the interim orders passed on 6.9.2024 and the final clarificatory orders passed on 20.2.2025, by the Honble Supreme Court in MA Diary No 2400/2024, in the case of M Siddaraj, covered those retirees, who had filed writ petitions and had succeeded and in whose cases the judgement had attained finality. In such cases, the directions given in said judgement will apply.

¶201

12(ii). Category (ii), comprised of the “Petitioner-

¶202

27 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶203

Retirees” as in Clauses (d) of the interim orders passed on 6.9.2024 and the final clarificatory orders passed on 20.2.2025, by the Honble Supreme Court, in MA Diary No 2400 / 2024, in case of M Siddaraj, covered those retirees, who had filed an application for intervention/impleadment

¶204

/writ petition/original application/writ petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Court /Supreme Court “before” the date of passing of the judgement on 19.05.2023 in the of M Siddaraj [in Civil Appeal No 3933 of 2023]. In such cases, the retirees being petitioners , cases instituted prior to the decision dated 19.5.2023 in case of M Siddaraj (supra), are to be given enhanced pension by including one increment payable for the period of three years prior to the month in which the application for intervention/ impleadment / petition / original application was filed. 12(iii). Category (iii), canvassed as “ Non-PetitionerThird Parties-Retirees” as in “ Further Stipulation under Clauses (d)” of the interim orders passed

¶205

28 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶206

on 06.09.2024 and final clarificatory orders passed on 20.2.2025, by the Honble Supreme Court, in MA Diary No 2400 / 2024, in case of M Siddaraj, covered those retirees, who had filed writ petition /original application or application for intervention before the Central Administrative Tribunal /High Court/Supreme Court “after” the date of passing of the judgement on 19.05.2023” in the case of M Siddaraj [in Civil Appeal No 3933 of 2023]. In such cases, the retirees being third parties or non-petitioners , in cases instituted prior to the decision dated 19.5.2023 in case of M Siddaraj (supra). Such retirees, being third parties or nonpetitioners are to be governed by Clause (a) and not by Clause (d) of final clarificatory orders dated 20.02.2025 ; by giving them the enhanced pension by including one increment payable from 01.05.2023, and that too without any past arrears.

¶207

12(iv). Now, coming to the validity of Impugned Orders dated 10.7.2024 [Annexure P-3], in the lead case and like orders passed in connected cases, this Court is of the considered view, that in the

¶208

29 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶209

background of the judgement(s) in the cases of C P Mundinamani and M Siddaraj (supra) and the

¶210

final clarificatory orders passed by Honble Supreme

¶211

Court, indisputably, the Respondent Employees in the lead case and in other connected cases, being third parties-non petitioners, had filed Original Applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal during the year 2024 i.e. after passing of the judgment dated 19.5.2023 in case of M Siddaraj (supra) , which is borne out from the Tabular Chart detailed in Para 3 of this judgement]. Even, the Respondents-Employees have not placed any material on record to assert that prior to filing of Original Application(s), they had participated in judicial proceedings either as Interveners or were otherwise Impleaded in any other pending matter {OA/CWP/SLP} before passing of judgement on 19.05.2023 in case of M Siddaraj . In these circumstances, the Respondent(s)-Employees in these writ petitions, being third parties /nonpetitioners, are to be governed by Clause (a) of final clarificatory orders dated 20.02.2025 supra,

¶212

and consequently, these employees are held entitled

¶213

30 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶214

for enhanced pension by taking into account one increment from 01.05.2023, and that too without any past arrears.

¶215

Resultantly, the Impugned orders dated 10.7.2024, passed by Learned Tribunal in OA No 440 of 2024, giving the benefit of annual increment for enhanced pension w.e.f 01.07.2018 in lead case and in other connected cases {from dates mentioned in Col no 5 of Tabular Chart as detailed in Para 3 above} being contrary to the judgements and the final clarificatory orders dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of C.P. Mundinamani and M. Siddaraj (supra), cannot sustain and therefore, the impugned orders need to be interdicted and the same are accordingly quashed and set-aside.

¶216

CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER-UOI

¶217

13. In backdrop of mandate of law, this Court proceeds to analyze the contentions of the Learned Deputy Solicitor General for the petitioners-Union of India as well as respective Learned Counsel(s) for the Respondents-Employees hereinunder:

¶218

31 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶219

13(i) . First contention of Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that the judgment in the case of C.P. Mundinamani [Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023; originating from SLP(C) No.6182 of 2020, decided on 11.04.2023] had not attained finality as the Union of India has filed a Review Petition, which was pending adjudication.

¶220

The above contention of Learned Deputy Solicitor General appears to be attractive but in view of subsequent events, viz is, that after the filing of instant petition till its listing before this Court, the contention of the petitioners-UOI is negated, in view of the fact that though the petitioner-Union of India filed the instant petition [CWP No.411 of 2025] on 20.11.2024 and this petition was listed before this Court on 07.01.2025, whereas , the Review Petition (C) Diary No. 36418 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023, In re: The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors vs C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., stood dismissed on 18.12.2024 , on the ground of defects, delay as also on merits. Since, the Review Petition filed by the Union of India stood dismissed and

¶221

32 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶222

the judgment dated 11.04.2023 in case of C.P. Mundinamani had attained finality, therefore, the contention of Learned Deputy Solicitor General cannot sustain and is accordingly, turned down.

¶223

13(ii). Second contention of Learned Deputy

¶224

Solicitor General is that the provision of FR 17 and Rule 10 of CCS [Revised Pay] Rules negates the claim of the Respondent-Employee(s) as the pay and allowances cannot be granted after an employee ceases to be in service; and the notional increment due after retirement cannot be released to him.

¶225

The above contentions of Learned Deputy

¶226

Solicitor General is misconceived for the reason, that in terms of the judgment(s) in the case of

¶227

P. Ayyamperumal which has been upheld in the case of C.P. Mundinamani, the provisions of FR 17 and Rule 10 of the CCS [Revised] Pay Rules cannot be permitted to be invoked by the petitionersUnion of India so as to take away or to curtail

¶228

or deny the earned annual increment for having rendered one years of service with its payability for pension to respondent-employee in the instant

¶229

33 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶230

case. Even, the entitlement of one increment for purposes of pension, stands reaffirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, while passing the directions on 06.09.2024 and the final clarificatory orders on 20.02.2025 in MA filed in case of M Siddaraj [ supra] . An accrued and crystallized right to receive earned annual increment for having rendered past one years of unblemished service with satisfactory work and conduct can neither be curtailed, restricted, taken away, withheld or denied due to misreading and misapplication of FR 17 and Rule 10 of CCS [Revised Pay] Rules, already stands negated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of C.P. Mundinamani,

¶231

and M. Siddaraj (supra) , and therefore, the contention cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and the same is accordingly turned down.

¶232

13(iii). L ast contention of Learned Solicitor General is that the judgment in case of C.P. Mundinamani is a judgment in personam and therefore, the benefit of notional increment for pension cannot be extended to the Respondent-employee(s).

¶233

The above contention of Learned Deputy

¶234

34 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶235

Solicitor General is misconceived, for the reason, that in terms of the judgment dated 11.04.2023, in cases of C.P. Mundinamani, which was reinforced in M Siddaraj (supra), once the law stands declared on the twin aspects i.e. “entitlement” of a retired employee for annual increment earned on completion of one years of unblemished service and such an accrued right cannot be negated, on the plea that an employee stood retired from government service on the very next day of earning said increment and the aforesaid judgements and the clarificatory orders dated 06.09.2024 and the final orders dated 20.02.2025 also declares the “date of admissibility” of enhanced pension after taking into account earned annual increment for retirees (i) successful retirees, who had filed cases, which stood decided such judgements had also attained finality and in such cases, the benefits in terms of the judgements will

¶236

be given in terms of Clause (b) of final clarificatory orders dated 20.02.2025 passed by Honble Supreme Court ; and (ii) retirees who were petitioners and had participated in proceedings before Tribunal/High

¶237

35 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶238

Court/Supreme Court, either by filing petition or by joining proceedings as intervenors or seeking impleadment, “before” passing of the judgement in case of M Siddaraj on 19.05.2023 and their cases had attained finality and in such cases, the retirees shall be given enhanced pension for three years prior to the month in which the application/petition was filed, in terms of Clause (d) of final clarificatory orders dated 20.05.2025; and (iii) retirees who were non-petitioners or third parties, who had neither filed any petition nor an application as intervenors or impleadment before the Tribunal/High Court / Supreme Court, but had instituted the cases “after” the passing of judgement in case of M Siddaraj (supra) on 19.05.2023 and in such cases, the retirees shall be given the enhanced pension from 01.05.2023, but without any enhanced pension prior to 01.05.2023 in terms of the stipulation contained as “Further under Clause (d) read with Clause (a)” in the final clarificatory order dated 20.05.2025. Thus, once the legal status or right of retirees qua “entitlement” and “date of admissibility

¶239

36 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶240

of payability of pension by taking into account the earned annual increment {due on 1^st July or 1^st January} stands declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in terms of the judgements in cases C.P. Mundinamani and M. Siddaraj [supra] , therefore the aforesaid judgements, declaring the right of the retirees, as above, is certainly a judgment in rem. Accordingly, contention of Learned Deputy Solicitor General that these judgments are in personam , is misconceived and is turned down.

¶241

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT-EMPLOYEE(S):

¶242

14. Learned Counsel for the Respondent(s)Employee(s) has placed on record a copy of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2025 granting notional increment to the employees who retired on 1^st July/1^st January, even though he stood retired on 30^th June/31^st December for the purposes of calculating the pension of the said employee, in the following terms :

¶243

“No.1 No. 19/116/2024-Pers.Pol. (Pay) (Pt) Government of India

¶244

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training North Block, New Delhi Dated the 20th May, 2025.

¶245

37 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶246

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

¶247

Subject: Grant of notional increment on 1st July/1st January to the employees who retired from Central Govt. service on 30th June / 31st December respectively for the purpose of calculating their pensionary benefits - regarding. *** The undersigned is directed to invite reference to the instructions issued vide this Department's OM of even number dated 14.10.2024 (copy enclosed) regarding grant of 'notional increment' on 1st July/1st January to the Central Government employees who retired/are retiring from service a day before it became due i.e. on 30th June /31st December and have rendered the requisite qualifying service as on the date of their superannuation with satisfactory work and good conduct for calculating the pension admissible to them. The said instructions were issued in compliance of the Interim Order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while hearing. MA No.2400/2024 filed by M/o Railways along with several Intervention Applications tagged therewith. It was indicated therein that the action taken shall be subject to the final outcome of the petition (Dy. No. 36418/2024) filed by this Department seeking review of the Order dated 11.04.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No. 2471/2023 on the subject matter.

¶248

Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide Order dated 18.12.2024, had dismissed the Review Petition (Dy. No. 36418/2024) filed by this Department with the observation that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, warranting reconsideration of the order impugned.

¶249

Hon'ble Supreme Court has subsequently disposed of MA No. 2400/2024 filed by M/o Railways and other petitions vide Order dated 20.02.2025 while issuing the following final directions in the matter:

¶250

a. to d….refer to Para 10 (v) supra..

¶251

38 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶252

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided that the direction referred at Para 3(d) above will not apply to the retired government employee who filed a writ petition/ original application or an application for intervention before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/ Supreme after the judgment in "Union of India & Anr. Vs M. Siddaraj", as in such cases directions referred in Para 3(a) will apply.

¶253

In addition, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that in case any excess payment has already been made, including arrears, such amount paid will not be recovered. Court has decided that pending applications including all intervention/impleadment applications shall stand disposed of in terms of this order.

¶254

The matter has been examined in consultation with D/o Expenditure and D/o Legal Affairs. It is advised that in pursuance of the above referred Order dated 20.02.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, action may be taken to allow the increment on 1st July/1st January to the Central Government employees who retired/are retiring a day before it became due i.e. on 30th June/ 31st December and have rendered the requisite qualifying service as on the date of their superannuation with satisfactory work and good conduct for calculating the pension admissible to them. As specifically mentioned in the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, grant of the notional increment on 1st January /1st July shall be reckoned only for the purpose of calculating the pension admissible and not for the purpose of calculation of other pensionary benefits.

¶255

This issues with the concurrence D/o Expenditure vide their Dy. No. 0809/2019-Ε.ΙΙΙΑ (Vol.III) (4265134) dated 29.04.2025 and D/o Legal Affairs vide Computer Dy. No. E-144903 dated 17.03.2025.

¶256

,,, not relevant..

¶257

39 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶258

Sd/Under Secretary to the Government of India

¶259

On query by this Court, Learned Deputy Solicitor General does not dispute, that in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2025, the principles mandating the “entitlement” and “date of admissibility” of the benefit of enhanced pension after taking into account the annual increment, based on the law, declared by the Honble Supreme Court in the judgments in the cases of C.P. Mundinamani and M. Siddaraj and the final clarificatory orders dated 20.02.2025 has been spelt out. Even as per the OM, the Respondents-Employees herein, being non-petitioners-third party who had filed Original Applications in the year 2024 i.e. after the passing of the judgement dated 19.5.2023, in case of M Siddaraj (supra), are to be governed by Clause (a) of the final orders dated 20.02.2025, by giving enhanced pension after taking into account annual increment w.e.f. 01.05.2023 and not from 01.07.2018 as in lead case and from like dates {as in Col No 5 of Tabular Chart in Para 3

¶260

40 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶261

of this judgement} is patently erroneous and cannot sustain. Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated 10.07.2024 [Annexure P-3] passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in Original Application No. 440 of 2024 [Annexure P-3 in Writ file] in Lead case, [Jagdish Paul Singh Thakur vs UOI & Anr] and in other connected cases is quashed and set-aside; with the modified directions to give the benefit of enhanced pension after taking into account annual increments w.e.f. 01.05.2023.

¶262

15. Except the above, no other contention/issue has been raised by Learned Counsel(s) for parties, in instant proceedings.

¶263

16. The reasoning as well as the discussion made here-in-above, in Lead Case in CWP No.411 of 2025, tilted as Union of India & Another versus Jagdish Paul Singh Thakur, shall mutatis mutandis apply to other seven connected writ petitions [CWP Nos.1422, 1423, 1424, 1427, 1428, 1429 & 2340 of 2025], which are being disposed of by a common judgment.

¶264

41 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶265

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:

¶266

17. In view of the above discussion and for

¶267

reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petitions are partly allowed, in the following terms :-

¶268

(i). Impugned Order dated 10.07.2024 [Annexure P-3] in Original Application No. 440 of 2024, in Re: Jagdish Paul Singh Thakur versus Union of India & Another [Annexure P-3] passed by Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, holding the Original Applicant-Respondent -Employee entitled for notional increment w.e.f. 01.07.2018 with all consequential benefits is quashed and set-aside ;

¶269

(ii). Based on the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani re-affirmed in M. Siddaraj and the final clarificatory orders dated 20.02.2025 in Mis. Application [Diary No.2400 of 2024] in M. Siddaraj (supra); Original ApplicantRespondent-Employee [Jagdish Paul Singh Thakur] in Lead Case herein ; by giving enhanced pension after taking into annual increment notionally w.e.f. 01.05.2023;

¶270

(iii). Petitioners shall release enhanced pension to Original Applicant-Respondent-Employee [Jagdish Paul Singh Thakur] w.e.f. 01.05.2023; with all consequential benefits thereafter;

¶271

(iv). Directions (i) to (iii) shall mutatis mutandis apply to Original Applicants-Respondent

¶272

42 - ( 2025:HHC:21621-DB )

¶273

Employees by giving enhanced pension after taking into account the annual increment notionally w.e.f. 01.05.2023 in connected writ petition(s) [CWP Nos. 1422, 1423, 1424, 1427, 1428, 1429 and 2340 of 2025]; and Impugned Order(s) passed by Learned Administrative Tribunal [as in Para 3 of this Judgement] are quashed and set-aside ;

¶274

(v). Petitioners shall release enhanced pension to all the Respondent-Employees-Original Applicants herein w.e.f 01.05.2023 with all consequential benefits thereafter ;

¶275

(vi) Benefits as in directions (i) to (vi) be released within two months from today; failing which, the Respondents-Employees shall thereafter be entitled to interest at rate of 7% per annum w.e.f. 01.05.2023, till realization;

¶276

(vii) Costs made easy for respective parties.

¶277

In aforesaid terms, the writ petitions and

¶278

all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.

¶279

(G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma) Chief Justice Judge

¶280

June 06, 2025

¶281

[Shivender]

Union of India and Anr. v. Davinder Kumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Anr. v. Davinder Kumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hardev Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Union of India and Anr. Vs Madan Lal

Shrishti Pal Vasudeva and Anr. Vs Narsingh Dutt and Ors.

Nawang Sonam Vs State of Hp and Others

Union of India and Others Vs Gilu Ram Dhatwalia

Union of India and Others Vs Kishori Lal