R.d. Sharma v. State Of H.p. And Another

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.:— Prayer of the petitioner for extension in service by one day i.e. 01.01.2015 for the purpose of earning annual increment has been turned down by the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 12.04.2018. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred instant writ petition.

2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner had been serving as Joint Director, Prosecution. He was to superannuate on 31.12.2014, in accordance with Fundamental Rule 56 (in short FR 56). The respondent-State carried out an amendment and inserted Clause (dd) in FR 56 vide Notification dated 28.05.2014, which reads as under:—

“(dd) A Government servant shall have an option to continue in Govt. service beyond the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years till the attainment of age of 59 years subject to the conditions as mentioned below:—

(i) ……….

(ii) During the extension, the Government servant shall continue to draw the same pay which was being drawn by him at the time of attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years.”

3. Petitioner exercised option in accordance with the above clause for extension in service on attaining the age of 58 years w.e.f. 01.01.2015. In terms of FR 56 (dd) (ii), he continued to draw the same pay which was being drawn by him at the time of attaining the age of superannuation.

4. The Notification dated 28.05.2014 was withdrawn by the respondent-State w.e.f. 31.03.2015. The petitioner moved an application for grant of one day extension in service for 01.01.2015 for earning the annual increment.

5. Petitioner had already superannuated on 31.12.2014. With effect from 01.01.2015, he was enjoying the benefit of extended service pursuant to the option exercised by him for extension in service after attaining the age of 58 years in terms of Notification dated 28.05.2014. Under this Notification, during the extension period, no further increment could have been granted to him. In terms of FR 56(a), a government servant retires on the last day of the month in which he attains age of superannuation. Petitioner retired on the basic pay drawn by him on 31.12.2014. He cannot be held entitled to any increment which may fall due post his superannuation (Refer to CWP No. 2503 of 2016 titled Hari Prakash v. State of H.P.).

6. Learned Tribunal, therefore, committed no error in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner seeking one day extension in service for 01.01.2015 for the purpose of earning annual increment. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.