Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court

Employees Entitled to Annual Increment Despite Retirement On Very Next Day - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that employees who have earned their annual increment are entitled to receive it, even if they retire on the very next day after earning the increment. The judgment came in a case where the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) had denied the annual increment to employees who retired on the day following the increment.

The dispute centered around Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997, which states that an increment accrues from the day following its earning. The KPTCL had argued that since the employees were not in service on the day when the increment accrued, they were not entitled to it.

However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the purpose of the annual increment is to reward employees for their good conduct and efficient service rendered in the preceding year. The Court noted that the increment is earned based on the completion of one year of service with good conduct and efficiency, regardless of the employee's retirement the next day.

The Court further stated that denying employees their legitimate annual increment solely on the ground of retirement would be arbitrary and unreasonable. It held that a narrow interpretation of the regulation leading to such denial should be avoided.

Date of Judgment: April 11, 2023

The Director (Admn. and HR) VS C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/11-Apr-2023-Director-KTPCL-vs-C.P.-Mundinamani-^0-Ors.pdf"]

                            

Latest Legal News