Case at a Glance
A Shastri teacher in Himachal Pradesh’s Education Department retired on 30 June 2021, a day before her annual increment was due on 1 July 2021. Her representation seeking the increment for pension purposes went undecided. The High Court set out the Supreme Court’s law in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani and the later orders in Union of India v. M. Siddaraj, along with the State Finance Department’s instructions of 3 May 2025, and directed the authorities to decide her claim for notional increment and revised pension within six weeks.
The petitioner served as a Shastri in the Education Department of Himachal Pradesh and retired on superannuation on 30 June 2021. Her annual increment would have fallen due on 1 July 2021, the day after she retired. She submitted a representation dated 23 August 2026 seeking the benefit of that increment for computing her pension, but it had not been considered.
She approached the High Court relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment of 11 April 2023 in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. v. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., (2023) 04 SC CK 0024 (Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023). With the consent of counsel, the petition was heard at the outset, notice being waived by the State, and both sides placed before the Court the Supreme Court’s subsequent orders in Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj.
The Key Question Before the Court
How should the claim of an employee who retired a day before her increment fell due be dealt with, in light of Mundinamani, the Siddaraj orders and the State’s instructions?
The Mundinamani line and the Siddaraj clarifications
The Court recorded that in Mundinamani the Supreme Court recognised the claim of employees retiring the day before their increment fell due. It then noted the Supreme Court’s interim order of 6 September 2024 in Union of India v. M. Siddaraj, which clarified how that judgment applies to third parties — including that enhanced pension with one increment would be payable to third parties from 1 May 2023 — and the Department of Personnel and Training memorandum of 14 October 2024 allowing notional increments for pension calculation only, “without prejudice to the legal stand of the Union of India.”
The Court further recorded the Supreme Court’s order of 20 February 2025, which modified the earlier directions so that enhanced pension with one increment is payable for three years before the month in which the writ petition or application is filed, and excess amounts already paid will not be recovered. It also noted the Himachal Pradesh Finance Department’s instructions of 3 May 2025, which treat the benefit as being for pensionary purposes only and leave departments to settle such cases at their own level. Without deciding the merits, the Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case in that framework.
What the Court Actually Held
- The petition was disposed of without a decision on merits.
- The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s claim for notional increment and pension or revised pension in light of Mundinamani, the Siddaraj orders of 6 September 2024 and 20 February 2025, and the State’s instructions of 3 May 2025.
- The exercise must be completed within six weeks, and a copy of the decision sent to the petitioner.
- Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Thousands of employees retire on 30 June or 31 December, just before an increment falls due; this order maps the current legal framework.
- It highlights the Supreme Court’s three-year limit on arrears, which makes delay in approaching the court costly.
- It shows that in Himachal Pradesh such claims are to be settled by departments themselves under the 3 May 2025 instructions.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Retired Employees
- If you retired the day before your increment was due, file a representation citing Mundinamani and the State instructions.
- Arrears are limited to three years before the month of filing, so do not delay.
- The benefit is for pension computation; it is not a salary increment for service already rendered.
For Counsel
- Place the Siddaraj orders of 6 September 2024 and 20 February 2025 before the court.
- Check the applicable State or Central instructions implementing the notional increment.
- Seek a time-bound direction to decide the representation where it has been kept pending.
Key Takeaways
- Notional increment claim for 30 June retirees to be decided under Mundinamani.
- Siddaraj limits arrears to three years before filing.
- HP Finance Department instructions dated 3 May 2025 apply.
- Decision within six weeks.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a notional increment for pension?
It is the annual increment that would have fallen due the day after retirement, counted only for computing pension, as recognised in KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani.
How much arrears can be claimed?
Under the Supreme Court’s order of 20 February 2025 in Siddaraj, as recorded by the High Court, enhanced pension with one increment is payable for three years before the month of filing the writ petition or application.
Did the High Court grant the increment directly?
No. It disposed of the petition directing the State to decide the claim within six weeks under the Supreme Court orders and the State’s 3 May 2025 instructions.
Conclusion
Suresh Kumari, (2026) 10 SHI CK 3238 is a short order, but it neatly lays out the current position on the ‘day-after-retirement’ increment and sends the claim back for a time-bound decision.
Practical takeaway: Employees who retired just before their increment date should promptly file a representation citing Mundinamani, the Siddaraj orders and the applicable State instructions, since arrears are capped at three years.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com