Arjun Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

T he controversy raised in the p r esent petition is with regard t o grant of annual increment which has fallen d u e on the date subsequent to th e date when th e employee superannuated. Sinc e the increment became payabl e upon satisfa c tory completion of one year s ervice, as such, the fortuitou s circumstance of it falling due on the day foll o wing the superannuation canno t be to the detr i ment of the petitioners.

¶13

T he issue in that regard stands settled by the judgment of th e Supreme Co u rt in The Director (Administration and HR) KPTCL and others vs. C.P.Mundinamani and others , 2023 SCC Online SC 401 . Review Petit i on (c) Diary No.36418/2024 fil e d in the matter also came to b e rejected on 1 8.12.2024. The judgment in C .P.Mundinamani’s case (supra ) has been reit e rated by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. M.

¶14

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.08.18 15:40 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶15

CWP-10040-2025 (O&M)

¶16

[2]

¶17

Siddaraj (Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023). Further clarification was issued by the Supreme Court through an order dated 20^th February 2025, while disposing of miscellaneous applications in the M. Siddaraj’s case, which is reproduced as under:

¶18

“Miscellaneous Application Diary Nos. 2400/2024, 35783/2024,“35785/2024 and 35786/2024. Delay condoned.

¶19

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

¶20

“(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.”

¶24

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:

¶25

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.08.18 15:40 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶26

CWP-10040-2025 (O&M)

¶27

[3]

¶28

“(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.”

¶29

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”1, as in such cases, clause (a) will apply. Recording the aforesaid, the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.

¶30

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 noncompliance 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.

¶31

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

¶32

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.”

¶33

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.08.18 15:40 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶34

CWP-10040-2025 (O&M)

¶35

[4]

¶36

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, who completed one year of continuous satisfactory service as on 30^th of June, 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.

¶37