Case Law Details
Hari Prakash Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
The petitioner, a Junior Basic Teacher, with 01.03.1958 as his date of birth was due for superannuation on 29.02.2016. The date of his annual increment was 1st March of every year. He being a State awardee was granted an extension of one year in service in light of State Government instruction, dated 30.11.2015. After availing the extended service, petitioner superannuated on 28.02.2017. His representation requesting one day extension in service has been rejected. Hence he has preferred instant writ petition to claim increment which fell on 01.03.2017.
The petitioner was not on duty on 1.4.2003. Increment can be drawn only when an employee is on duty. The increment in terms of FR 24 & 26 did not become due during the period of service of the petitioner. Therefore, increment on 1.4.2003 cannot be sanctioned in favour of petitioner on the ground that he had completed twelve months of continuous service. The date of increment falls due on the first day of the succeeding month after the retirement. Petitioner retired on the basic pay drawn by him on 31.3.2003 i.e. his date of retirement. His pension has to be determined accordingly. Petitioner had become a pensioner on 1.04.2003. He cannot be held entitled to any increment which may fall due post his retirement. He is entitled only to those increments which fall due to him during the period of his service.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
