THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. AND HR) KPTCL & ORS.versusC.P. MUNDINAMANI & ORS.

332                      [2023]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    3 S.C.R. 332              [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A           THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. AND HR) KPTCL & ORS.
                                       v.
                       C.P. MUNDINAMANI & ORS.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023)
B                               APRIL 11, 2023
               [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
             Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations,
      1997 – Regulation 40(1) – As per Regulation 40(1) an increment
C     accrues from the day following that on which it is earned –
      Appellant-KTCL denied the annual increment to the respondents-
      respective employees on the ground that the day on which the
      increment accrued, the respondents were not in service – 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
D     earning the increment – Held: Merely because, the government
      servant has retired on the very next day, he cannot be denied the
      annual increment which he has earned – In the instant case, the
      word “accrue” should be understood liberally and would mean
      payable on the succeeding day – Any contrary view would lead to
E     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.
F           Dismissing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1. The submission on behalf of the appellants that
      as the increment has accrued on the next day on which it is earned
      and therefore, even in a case where an employee has earned the
      increment one day prior to his retirement but he is not in service
G     the day on which the increment is accrued is concerned, while
      considering the aforesaid issue, the object and purpose of grant
      of annual increment is required to be considered. A government
      servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good
      conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are given
      annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments
H
                                      332
  THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. AND HR) KPTCL & ORS. v. C.P.                   333
              MUNDINAMANI & ORS.

are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency.   A
Therefore, the increment is earned for rendering service with
good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment
a government servant has rendered service for a specified period
with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual
increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual
                                                                     B
increment or rendering the specified period of service with good
conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the
annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a
specified period (one year) with good conduct efficiently. Merely
because, the government servant has retired on the very next
day, how can he be denied the annual increment which he has          C
earned and/or is entitled to for rendering the service with good
conduct and efficiently in the preceding one year. [Para 6.5][339-
F-H; 340-A-C]
       2. To interpret Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations in the
manner in which the appellants have understood and/or                D
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 efficiently in the last preceding year. It
would be punishing a person for no fault of him. As observed         E
hereinabove, the increment can be withheld only by way of
punishment or he has not performed the duty efficiently. Any
interpretation arbitrariness which and/or would lead to
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          F
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 behaviour. The
entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the
government servant completes requisite length of service with        G
good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day. In
the present case the word “accrue” 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
                                                                     H
334            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     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. [Para 6.7][343-A-E]
            P. Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar and Ors. W.P. No.
            15732/2017 decided on 15.09.2017 by the Madras
B           High Court; Gopal Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.
            Writ Petition (C) No. 10509/2019 decided on
            23.01.2020 by the Delhi High Court; Nand Vijay Singh
            and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. Writ A No. 13299/
            2020 decided on 29.06.2021 by the Allahabad High
            Court; Yogendra Singh Bhadauria and Ors. Vs. State
C
            of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court);
            AFR Arun Kumar Biswal Vs. State of Odisha and Anr.
            Writ Petition No. 17715/2020 decided on 30.07.2021
            by Orissa High Court; State of Gujarat Vs. Takhatsinh
            Udesinh Songara Letters Patent Appeal No. 868/2021
D           by the Gujarat High Court – approved.
            Principal Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh and
            Anr. Vs. C. Subba Rao 2005 (2) LLN 592; Union of
            India Vs. Pavithran O.P.(CAT) No. 111/2020 decided
            on 22.11.2022 by the Kerala High Court; Hari
E           Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. CWP
            No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020 by the Himachal
            Pradesh High Court – disapproved.
            Union of India and Ors. Vs. R. Malakondaiah and ors.
            2002(4) ALT 550 (D.B.) – referred to.
F
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2471
      of 2023.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2020 of the High Court
      of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA No. 4193 of 2017.
G          Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., S. K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar,
      Ankur S. Kulkarni, Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Advs. for the Appellants.
           M/s. Bannidinni and Co., Mallikarjun S. Mylar, Manjunath, Ashok
      Bannidinni, Sujeet Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.

H
   THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. AND HR) KPTCL & ORS. v. C.P.                               335
               MUNDINAMANI & ORS.

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                 A
       M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ
Appeal No. 4193/2017, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court
                                                                                  B
has allowed the said appeal preferred by the employees - respondents
herein by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by
the learned Single Judge and directing the appellants to grant one annual
increment which the respondents had earned one day prior to they retired
on attaining the age of superannuation, the management – KPTCL has
preferred the present appeal.                                                     C
       2. The undisputed facts are that one day earlier than the retirement
and on completion of one year service preceding the date of retirement
all the employees earned one annual increment. However, taking into
consideration Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board
Employees Service Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the               D
Regulations), which provides that an increment accrues from the day
following that on which it is earned, the appellants denied the annual
increment on the ground that the day on which the increment accrued
the respective employees – original writ petitioners were not in service.
The writ petition(s) filed by the original writ petitioners claiming the annual
                                                                                  E
increment came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge. By the
impugned judgment and order and following the decision of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. R.
Malakondaiah and ors. reported in 2002(4) ALT 550 (D.B.) and
relying upon the decisions of other High Courts, the Division Bench of
the Karnataka High Court has allowed the appeal and has directed that             F
the appellants to grant one annual increment to the respective employees-
respondents by observing that the respective employees as such earned
the increment for rendering their one-year service prior to their retirement.
     2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the                     G
management – KPTCL has preferred the present appeal.
      3. Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared
on behalf of the appellants and Shri Mallikarjun S. Mylar, learned counsel
has appeared on behalf of the respective employees – respondents.
                                                                                  H
336             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A           3.1 Shri Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
      the appellants has vehemently submitted that the decision of the Andhra
      Pradesh High Court in the case of R. Malakondaiah (supra) which
      has been relied upon by the Division Bench of the High Court while
      passing the impugned judgment and order has been subsequently overruled
B     by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of
      Principal Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh and Anr. Vs. C.
      Subba Rao reported in 2005 (2) LLN 592.

             3.2 It is further submitted by Shri Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocate
      appearing on behalf of the appellants that there are divergent views of
C     different High Courts on the issue. It is submitted that the Madras High
      Court, the Delhi High Court, the Allahabad High Court, the Madhya
      Pradesh High Court, the Gujarat High Court have taken a contrary view
      than the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
      Court, the Kerala High Court and the Himachal Pradesh High Court. It
      is submitted that various High Courts taking the contrary view have as
D
      such followed the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of P.
      Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar and Ors. (W.P. No. 15732/2017
      decided on 15.09.2017).
              3.3 On merits, Shri Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocate appearing
E     on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that the words
      used in Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations are very clear and
      unambiguous. It is submitted that it categorically provides that “an
      increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned.” It
      is submitted that therefore, when the right to get the increment is accrued
      the employee must be in service. It is submitted that in the present case
F     when the right to get the increment accrues in favour of the respective
      respondents they were not in service but on their superannuation retired
      from the services. It is submitted that therefore, they shall not be entitled
      to the annual increment which might have been earned one day earlier
      i.e., on the last day of their service.
G
            3.4 It is further submitted by Shri Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocate
      appearing on behalf of the appellants that the annual increment is in the
      form of a good service and it is an incentive so that the concerned
      employee may serve effectively and may render good services. It is
      submitted that therefore, when the concerned employees are not in service
H
   THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. AND HR) KPTCL & ORS. v. C.P.                           337
         MUNDINAMANI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

due to their retirement there is no question of grant of any annual           A
increment which as such is in the form of incentive to encourage the
employee for better performance.
        3.5 Shri Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the appellants has also taken us to the definition of the word “accrue” in
the Law Lexicon (the encyclopaedic law dictionary) and the definition         B
of the word “increment.” It is submitted that as per the Law Lexicon,
“increment” means a unit of increase in quantity or value. It means a
promotion from a lower grade to a higher grade. As per the definition
“increment” means an upward change in something. It is submitted that
as per the Law Lexicon the word “accrue” means to come into existence         C
as an enforceable claim or right. It is submitted that therefore, on true
interpretation of Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations, an increment
accrues from the day following that on which it is earned. It is submitted
that therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred.
It is submitted that therefore, the view taken by the Division Bench of
                                                                              D
the High Court and other High Courts that the concerned employees
shall be entitled to the benefit of one annual increment which they earned
one day prior to their retirement is erroneous and is on mis-interpretation
of the relevant statutory provisions. Making the above submissions, it is
prayed to allow the present appeal.
                                                                              E
       4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
employees – respondents, has heavily relied upon the decision of the
Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra) and the
decisions of the Gujarat High Court, the Delhi High Court, the Allahabad
High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Orissa High Court
taking the view that the concerned employees who earned the annual            F
increment for rendering one year service prior to their retirement they
cannot be denied the benefit of the annual increment which they actually
earned, solely on the ground that they retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on the very next day. It is submitted that therefore, the
Division Bench of the High Court has not committed any error in allowing      G
one annual increment in favour of the respective employees which they
actually earned.
      4.1 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the
present appeal.
                                                                              H
338             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A           5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
      respective parties.
             6. 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
B     day of earning the increment?
             6.1 In the present case, the relevant provision is Regulation 40(1)
      of the Regulations which reads as under: -
            “Drawals and postponements of increments
C
            40(1) An increment accrues from the day following that on which
            it is earned. An increment that has accrued shall ordinarily be
            drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment
            may be withheld from an employee by the competent authority, if
            his conduct has not been good, or his work has not been
D           satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an increment, the
            withholding authority shall state the period for which it is withheld,
            and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing
            future increments.”
             6.2 It is the case on behalf of the appellants that the word used in
E     Regulation 40(1) is that an increment accrues from the day following
      that on which it is earned and in the present case the increment accrued
      on the day when they retired and therefore, on that day they were not in
      service and therefore, not entitled to the annual increment which they
      might have earned one day earlier. It is also the case on behalf of the
F     appellants that as the increment is in the form of incentive and therefore,
      when the employees are not in service there is no question of granting
      them any annual increment which as such is in the form of incentive.
            6.3 At this stage, it is required to be noted that there are divergent
      views of various High Courts on the issue involved. The Full Bench of
G     the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Himachal Pradesh High Court and
      the Kerala High Court have taken a contrary view and have taken the
      view canvassed on behalf of the appellants. On the other hand, the
      Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi
      high Court in the case of Gopal Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.
      (Writ Petition (C) No. 10509/2019 decided on 23.01.2020); the
H
  THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. AND HR) KPTCL & ORS. v. C.P.                           339
        MUNDINAMANI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs.            A
Union of India and Ors. (Writ A No. 13299/2020 decided on
29.06.2021); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra
Singh Bhadauria and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; the Orissa
High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal Vs. State of
Odisha and Anr. (Writ Petition No. 17715/2020 decided on
                                                                             B
30.07.2021); and the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat
Vs. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (Letters Patent Appeal No. 868/
2021) have taken a divergent view than the view taken by the Full
Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and have taken the view that
once an employee has earned the increment on completing one year
service he cannot be denied the benefit of such annual increment on his      C
attaining the age of superannuation and/or the day of retirement on the
very next day.
       6.4 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that
the annual increment is in the form of incentive and to encourage an
employee to perform well and therefore, once he is not in service, there     D
is no question of grant of annual increment is concerned, the aforesaid
has no substance. In a given case, it may happen that the employee
earns the increment three days before his date of superannuation and
therefore, even according to the Regulation 40(1) increment is accrued
on the next day in that case also such an employee would not have one
                                                                             E
year service thereafter. It is to be noted that increment is earned on one
year past service rendered in a time scale. Therefore, the aforesaid
submission is not to be accepted.
       6.5 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that
as the increment has accrued on the next day on which it is earned and
                                                                             F
therefore, even in a case where an employee has earned the increment
one day prior to his retirement but he is not in service the day on which
the increment is accrued is concerned, while considering the aforesaid
issue, the object and purpose of grant of annual increment is required to
be considered. A government servant is granted the annual increment
on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service.           G
Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such
increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with
efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned for rendering service with
good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a
government servant has rendered service for a specified period with
                                                                             H
340             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual increment and
      it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the
      specified period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is
      entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having
      served for a specified period (one year) with good conduct efficiently.
      Merely because, the government servant has retired on the very next
B
      day, how can he be denied the annual increment which he has earned
      and/or is entitled to for rendering the service with good conduct and
      efficiently in the preceding one year. In the case of Gopal Singh (supra)
      in paragraphs 20, 23 and 24, the Delhi High Court has observed and held
      as under: -
C
            (para 20)
            “Payment of salary and increment to a central government servant
            is regulated by the provisions of F.R., CSR and Central Civil
            Services (Pension) Rules. Pay defined in F.R. 9(21) means the
            amount drawn monthly by a central government servant and
D
            includes the increment. A plain composite reading of applicable
            provisions leaves no ambiguity that annual increment is given to a
            government servant to enable him to discharge duties of the post
            and that pay and allowances are also attached to the post. Article
            43 of the CSR defines progressive appointment to mean an
E           appointment wherein the pay is progressive, subject to good
            behaviour of an officer. It connotes that pay rises, by periodical
            increments from a minimum to a maximum. The increment in
            case of progressive appointment is specified in Article 151 of the
            CSR to mean that increment accrues from the date following that
F           on which it is earned. The scheme, taken cumulatively, clearly
            suggests that appointment of a central government servant is a
            progressive appointment and periodical increment in pay from a
            minimum to maximum is part of the pay structure. Article 151 of
            CSR contemplates that increment accrues from the day following
            which it is earned. This increment is not a matter of course but is
G           dependent upon good conduct of the central government servant.
            It is, therefore, apparent that central government employee earns
            increment on the basis of his good conduct for specified period
            i.e. a year in case of annual increment. Increment in pay is thus
            an integral part of progressive appointment and accrues from the
H           day following which it is earned.”
THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. AND HR) KPTCL & ORS. v. C.P.                           341
      MUNDINAMANI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

  (para 23)                                                                A
  “Annual increment though is attached to the post & becomes
  payable on a day following which it is earned but the day on which
  increment accrues or becomes payable is not conclusive or
  determinative. In the statutory scheme governing progressive
  appointment increment becomes due for the services rendered              B
  over a year by the government servant subject to his good
  behaviour. The pay of a central government servant rises, by
  periodical increments, from a minimum to the maximum in the
  prescribed scale. The entitlement to receive increment therefore
  crystallises when the government servant completes requisite
  length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the           C
  succeeding day.”
  (para 24)
  “In isolation of the purpose it serves the fixation of day succeeding
  the date of entitlement has no intelligible differentia nor any object   D
  is to be achieved by it. The central government servant retiring on
  30th June has already completed a year of service and the increment
  has been earned provided his conduct was good. It would thus be
  wholly arbitrary if the increment earned by the central government
  employee on the basis of his good conduct for a year is denied only
  on the ground that he was not in employment on the succeeding            E
  day when increment became payable.”
  “In the case of a government servant retiring on 30th of June the
  next day on which increment falls due/becomes payable looses
  significance and must give way to the right of the government
  servant to receive increment due to satisfactory services of a           F
  year so that the scheme is not construed in a manner that if offends
  the spirit of reasonableness enshrined in Article 14 of the
  Constitution of India. The scheme for payment of increment would
  have to be read as whole and one part of Article 151 of CSR
  cannot be read in isolation so as to frustrate the other part            G
  particularly when the other part creates right in the central
  government servant to receive increment. This would ensure that
  scheme of progressive appointment remains intact and the rights
  earned by a government servant remains protected and are not
  denied due to a fortuitous circumstance.”
                                                                           H
342            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A           6.6 The Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh
      (supra) while dealing with the same issue has observed and held in
      paragraph 24 as under: -
            “24. Law is settled that where entitlement to receive a benefit
            crystallises in law its denial would be arbitrary unless it is for a
B           valid reason. The only reason for denying benefit of increment,
            culled out from the scheme is that the central government servant
            is not holding the post on the day when the increment becomes
            payable. This cannot be a valid ground for denying increment
            since the day following the date on which increment is earned
            only serves the purpose of ensuring completion of a year’s service
C           with good conduct and no other purpose can be culled out for it.
            The concept of day following which the increment is earned has
            otherwise no purpose to achieve. In isolation of the purpose it
            serves the fixation of day succeeding the date of entitlement has
            no intelligible differentia nor any object is to be achieved by it.
D           The central government servant retiring on 30th June has already
            completed a year of service and the increment has been earned
            provided his conduct was good. It would thus be wholly arbitrary
            if the increment earned by the central government employee on
            the basis of his good conduct for a year is denied only on the
            ground that he was not in employment on the succeeding day
E           when increment became payable. In the case of a government
            servant retiring on 30th of June the next day on which increment
            falls due/becomes payable looses significance and must give way
            to the right of the government servant to receive increment due to
            satisfactory services of a year so that the scheme is not construed
F           in a manner that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined
            in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The scheme for payment
            of increment would have to be read as whole and one part of
            Article 151 of CSR cannot be read in isolation so as to frustrate
            the other part particularly when the other part creates right in the
            central government servant to receive increment. This would
G           ensure that scheme of progressive appointment remains intact
            and the rights earned by a government servant remains protected
            and are not denied due to a fortuitous circumstance.”
           6.7 Similar view has also been expressed by different High Courts,
      namely, the Gujarat High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the
H
   THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. AND HR) KPTCL & ORS. v. C.P.                            343
         MUNDINAMANI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Orissa High Court and the Madras High Court. As observed hereinabove,          A
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 efficiently in the last preceding year. It
                                                                               B
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,          C
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 behaviour. The entitlement to receive
increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes
requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on
the succeeding day. In the present case the word “accrue” should be            D
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          E
avoided. 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 in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal (supra);                F
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)
                                                                               G
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).
      7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to
                                                                               H
344              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     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
B     circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
             I.A. No. 149091/2022 stands disposed of in terms of the above.

      Ankit Gyan                                                       Appeal dismissed.
      (Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Mahendra Yadav, LCRAs)
C




D




E




F




G




H