Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)Hari Prakash R vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 6 November, 2020
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader relied
on the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High
Court in Hari Prakash and Others Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh and Others being Civil Writ
Petition No.2503 of 2016 decided on 6.11.2020,
further on the decision of the Rajasthan High
Court in Safi Mohammad and Others Vs. State
of Rajasthan and Others decided on 1.12.2021
and next also of the Rajasthan High Court in
Ramji Lal Kulhari and Others Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Others being Civil Writ Petition
No.85 of 2020 and group of petitions decided
on 10.1.2022 to submit that in the said
decisions, the High Courts had taken a contrary
view holding that there would occur no
entitlement to get the increment.
Mohammed Shafi And Ors. vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 7 November, 1975
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader relied
on the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High
Court in Hari Prakash and Others Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh and Others being Civil Writ
Petition No.2503 of 2016 decided on 6.11.2020,
further on the decision of the Rajasthan High
Court in Safi Mohammad and Others Vs. State
of Rajasthan and Others decided on 1.12.2021
and next also of the Rajasthan High Court in
Ramji Lal Kulhari and Others Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Others being Civil Writ Petition
No.85 of 2020 and group of petitions decided
on 10.1.2022 to submit that in the said
decisions, the High Courts had taken a contrary
view holding that there would occur no
entitlement to get the increment.
Ramji Lal Kulhari vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 January, 2022
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader relied
on the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High
Court in Hari Prakash and Others Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh and Others being Civil Writ
Petition No.2503 of 2016 decided on 6.11.2020,
further on the decision of the Rajasthan High
Court in Safi Mohammad and Others Vs. State
of Rajasthan and Others decided on 1.12.2021
and next also of the Rajasthan High Court in
Ramji Lal Kulhari and Others Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Others being Civil Writ Petition
No.85 of 2020 and group of petitions decided
on 10.1.2022 to submit that in the said
decisions, the High Courts had taken a contrary
view holding that there would occur no
entitlement to get the increment.
Gopal Singh vs Union Of India on 16 September, 2019
5.2 The view taken by the Madras High Court
in P.Ayyamperumal (supra) and by Delhi High
Court in Gopal Singh (supra) and other High
Courts as above, holding that the government
servant is entitled to increment becoming
payable on 1st July, even though he has retired
on 30th June, is required to be accepted. This
court is in concurrence with the view taken in
the aforesaid decisions by the Madras High
Court and the Delhi High Court and the reasons
supplied therein. This court is unable to
subscribe to the converse view taken by High
Courts of Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan.
P.Ayyamperumal vs The Registrar on 15 September, 2017
3.4.1 The Madras High Court considered it to
be a decisive circumstance that employee had
completed full year of service for which the
increment had become due, observing as under,
(para 7)
"The petitioner herein had completed one
full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the
increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on
which date he was not in service. In view
of the above judgment of this Court,
Page 5 of 13
Downloaded on : Fri Jul 22 20:19:07 IST 2022
C/SCA/13378/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2022
naturally he has to be treated as having
completed one full year of service, though
the date of increment falls on the next day
of his retirement. Applying the said
judgment to the present case, the writ
petition is allowed and the impugned
order passed by the first respondent
Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The
petitioner shall be given one notional
increment for the period from 01.07.2012
to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one
full year of service, though his increment
fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of
pensionary benefits and not for any other
purpose. No costs."
Afr Arun Kumar Biswal vs State Of Odisha And Another ..... Opp. ... on 30 July, 2021
4.1 On the other hand, learned advocate for the
respondent relied on the decisions in Gopal
Singh Vs. Union of India and Others being Writ
Petition No.10509 of 2019 decided by Delhi
High Court on 23.1.2020, in Nand Vijay Singh
and Others Vs. Union of India and Others being
Writ Petition No.13299 of 2020 of Allahabad
High Court decided on 29.6.2021, in Yogendra
Singh Bhadauria and Others Vs. State of
Page 6 of 13
Downloaded on : Fri Jul 22 20:19:07 IST 2022
C/SCA/13378/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2022
Madhya Pradesh of High Court of Madhya
Pradesh decided on 22.9.2020, in AFR Arun
Kumar Biswal Vs. State of Odisha and Another
being Writ Petition No.17715 of 2020 decided
on 30.7.2021.
Union Of India vs Laxmanbhai Kalabhai Chavda on 27 January, 2021
5.5 As a Co-ordinate Bench, we are bound by
the aforesaid view taken in Laxmanbhai Chavda
(supra), and stand in agreement with the same.