Jharkhand HC Upholds Retiring Employee’s Right to Last Increment, Cites Supreme Court Ruling
Harish Prasad Shukla v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
WP(S) No. 7757 of 2025
Issue
Whether a government employee who retires on the last date of June is entitled to receive one annual increment, in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in The Director (Admn. & HR), KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani (Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Director (Admn. & HR), KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani held that: An employee who retires on 30th June or 31st December is entitled to the annual increment that accrues on the following day, provided the employee has completed the requisite period of service with good conduct. Denial of such increment would be arbitrary and contrary to principles of fairness.
This ruling is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and must be followed by all courts and authorities.
The petitioner retired on the last date of June, and claimed entitlement to one increment based on the Supreme Court judgment.
The High Court observed that the issue raised by the petitioner is no longer res integra, as it has been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court.
Since the petitioner’s case squarely falls within the category of employees covered by the Supreme Court ruling, the petitioner is prima facie entitled to the benefit of the increment.
However, instead of directly granting monetary relief, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the competent authority (Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee) for consideration of the claim in accordance with law.
Conclusion
The writ petition was disposed of. The petitioner was directed to: File a representation before Respondent No. 4 within four weeks, along with a copy of the Supreme Court judgment. The competent authority shall decide the representation within six weeks thereafter. If found entitled, the monetary benefits arising out of the increment shall be disbursed within four weeks. The pensionary benefits of the petitioner shall also be revised accordingly.Thus, the High Court reaffirmed the binding nature of the Supreme Court judgment and ensured its effective implementation through administrative directions
.