SATYA DEO vs STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT

2026:JHHC:26293
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 7486 of 2023
……

Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, Age-about 67 years, S/o Late Kamla
Prasad, R/o Vimalalya, Harihar Singh Road, Morabadi,
Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi
(Jharkhand). …. Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Road
Construction Department, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand having
its office at Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.
…..Respondent(s)
With
W.P.(S) No. 6392 of 2023
……
1. Satya Deo Prasad, Age: about 61 years, S/o. Late Tapsi
Singh, R/o. 235, Road no. 2, Hawai Nagar, Birsa Chowk,
Ranchi, P.O. Hatia, P.S:- Hatia, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
2. Madhukar Kumar Sinha, Age about 61 years, S/o. Jadupati
Prasad, R/o. Flat no. 201, Ramjanam Enclave, Old Bazaar
Lane, Near Antu Chowk, Morabadi, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi
University, P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi Jharkhand
3. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Age about 62 years, S/o. Late
Kedar Nath Srivastava, R/o. House no. 09, Bhrigu Villa,
Kanchan Vihar Colony, Sankosai Road no. 1, Dimna Road,
Mango Jamshedpur P.O. & P.S.- Mango, District-East
Singhbhum, Jharkhand. …. Petitioner(s)
-VERSUS-
1. State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Road
Construction Department, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. The Principal Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand having
its office at Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.
…..Respondent(s)
……

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C.(M)-III
Mr. Arvind Kr. Mehta, Advocate
……

C.A.V. ON 21/08/2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 31/08/2026
1

2026:JHHC:26293
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Both these writ petitions involve common issue, as
such, both were heard together and being disposed of by this
common judgment.

3. The prayers made by the petitioners in both the cases
are identical, which mainly relates for granting one annual
increment (notional) to the petitioner(s) which they are legally
st
entitled on 1 of July of next year for having completed one
st th
year service period (1 of July to 30 of June of the preceding
year) as on the date of their superannuation from service, i.e.,
th
on 30 June of the respective years. Their claim is based on
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in The
Director (Admn & HR), KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani &
Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401 . In consequence of
the above grant of annual increment, the petitioners further
pray for directing the respondents to rectify the retiral-cum-
pensionary benefits and accordingly pay the accrued arrears
thereof.
4. The respondent-State during the pendency of the writ
petition, issued the Resolution no. 781/Fin. dated 16.03.2024,
which postulates that the benefits of granting one notional
increment in pay will be granted only to those employees who
are retiring after the date of Judgment passed by the Hon’ble
th st
Supreme Court, i.e., 11.04.2023, either on 30 June or 31
December of the year. This Resolution of the State Government
was made available to the petitioners in the respective counter
affidavit filed by the State.
5. The petitioners challenged the said Resolution by
filing Interlocutory Applications, which was allowed by this
Court vide order dated 14.10.2024, with a direction to the
2

2026:JHHC:26293
petitioners to file the amended writ petitions. The amended
writ petitions were filed.
6. Mr. Abhay Prkash, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners
emphatically argued that from bare perusal of the Resolution
no. 781/Fin. dated 16.03.2024 issued by the Finance
Department, Government of Jharkhand, it is a fact that one
notional increment in pay is admissible to all government
th st
employees, who are retiring either on 30 June of a year or 31
December of the year. The only obstacle which the State
Government has created by the above Resolution that the
above substantive benefit of one increment in pay is admissible
th
to only those employee, who would be retiring on 30
st
June/31 December of the year only after 11.04.2023, i.e., the
date of Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of The Director (Admn & HR), KPTCL & Ors. (supra) .
7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it
is a settled position of law that judgment of a Court does not
make new law, it only declares what the law always was.
Therefore, it applies retrospectively, unless the Court itself
says it will apply prospectively. To emphasis, he relied on the
recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Government of India & Anr. vs. Sri Devraj URS Medical
College reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1479 . By referring to
paragraph 11 of the said judgment which states that “.. if a
decision of the Apex Court does not expressly provide its
application to be prospective, then it is settled law that all
decisions of this Court are retrospective in application as held in
paragraph 29 of P.V. George vs State of Kerala [2007 (3) SCC
557], which is reproduced herein below :
“ 29. …… the law declared by a Court will have a
retrospective effect if not otherwise stated to be so
specifically….. ”
3

2026:JHHC:26293

8. He further contended by referring to the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in The Director (Admn & HR), KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P.
Mundinamani & Ors . (supra) , nowhere in above judgment has
specified that the same shall be applied prospectively; rather it
only clarifies the position of law that one day earlier than the
retirement, and on completion of one year service preceding
the date of retirement, all the employees will earn one annual
increment.

9. It has been submitted by Mr. Prkash that it is
admitted position that the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 have retired
from service on 30.06.2022 and the petitioner no. 3 has retired
on 30.06.2021, so far, the petitioners’ of W.P.(S) No. 6392 of
2023 are concerned. Further the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 7486
of 2023 has retired on 30.06.2016 . All the petitioners have
superannuated from service prior to 11.04.2023, i.e., the date
of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court declaring
that all employees retiring one day prior to date of increment
should be given one notional increment in pay.
10. Ld. Counsel further asserted that the State
Government even though accepted the fact that one notional
increment is admissible to all retired employee, but the date of
its effectiveness is prospective and will be given only from the
date of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court w.e.f.
11.04.2023. He had submitted that State Government, in crux,
has misled itself by not acknowledging the fact that all
judgments apply retrospectively. In such event, he prayed that
the date of effectiveness should be the date of retirement of the
respective petitioner(s). He while referring to the Resolution
asserted that the connotation of allowing only notional
th
increment is imbedded in the report of 6 Pay Revision itself,
4

2026:JHHC:26293
which is effective from 01.01.2006. The judgment passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court is only clarificatory in nature, and,
thus, must be treated to apply from 01.01.2006 itself.
11. In view of the above circumventing fact, he emphasizes
that the Court may exercise its power under Article 226 to read
down the portion of Resolution which give the date of its
effectiveness from 11.04.2023. To buttress his argument, he
refers to judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Subramanian Swamy & Ors. vs. Raju [2014 (8) SCC 390],
wherein it was held that “ Reading down the provisions of a
statute cannot be resorted to when the meaning thereof is plain
and unambiguous and the legislative intent is clear. Courts must
read the legislation literally in the first instance. If on such
reading and understanding the vice of unconstitutional is
attracted, the courts must explore whether there has been an
unintended legislative omission. If such an intendment can be
reasonably implied without undertaking what, unmistakably,
would be a legislative exercise, the Act may be read down to
save it from unconstitutionality .” He emphasizes that date of
effectiveness of the resolution must be from the date of
retirement of an employee; rather than 11.04.2023, as the
petitioners’ right to have notional increment is fortified by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12. Per contra, Mr. Devesh Krishna, Ld. Counsel
representing the State, while referring to the counter affidavit
filed, submits that Notification bearing No. 781 dated
16.03.2024 explicitly in para 6 points out that the benefit of
the notional increment, as granted by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court judgment dated 11.04.2023 shall be applicable only to
the employees who have retired after the date of said judgment,
i.e., 11.04.2023.
5

2026:JHHC:26293
13. It has been submitted that all the petitioners had
retired much prior to the date of the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such the benefit accrued out
cannot be given to them. He contended that the notification
was a conscious decision of the State Government and thus
applicable to the petitioners.
14. Having heard the Ld. Counsels for the rival parties and
upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is
apparent that one notional increment in pay is admissible to
all government employees who have put their service for one
year preceding the date of their retirement. The date of
st st
increment as determined by the State is either 1 of July or 1
of January of the year. In the instant case, all the petitioners
th
have retired on 30 of June of respective years on attaining the
age of superannuation.
15. Nonetheless, it is an admitted fact that all the
petitioners are legally entitled for one notional increment in the
pay as they had put one year of service on the date of
retirement.
16. Moreover, it is settled position of law that unless the
judgment expressly states that the decision would apply
prospectively, it shall apply retrospective. The recent judgment
in Government of India & Anr. vs. Sri Devraj URS Medical
College (supra) has further upheld the position of law regarding
the applicability of decision to be retrospective. Thus, in any
case, the claim of the petitioner(s) based on judgment of the
Apex Court rendered in the case of The Director (Admn & HR),
KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors (supra) has to be
treated with retrospective effect.
17. The Resolution no. 781 dated 16.03.2024 issued by
the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand is in
conformity of the said judgment; however, the State
6

2026:JHHC:26293
Government without having any rational decision has
mentioned the date of its effectiveness from 11.04.2023, i.e.,
the date of the judgment. The question put before the State’s
Counsel to give reasoning for making 11.04.2023 as the date
of its effectiveness is not responded satisfactorily. The fact that
this substantive right of getting one notional increment, stands
th
embedded in the 6 Pay Revision report is not disputed. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment dated 11.04.2023 has not
clarified the provision of law, which already existed.
18. Accordingly, this Court holds that date of
effectiveness, i.e., 11.04.2023 as specified in the Notification
no. 781 dated 16.03.2024 needs to be read down, and the date
of effectiveness shall be considered as the date of retirement of
th
any employee retiring after 01.01.2006, i.e., the date when 6
PRC was enforced.
19. Since all the petitioners retired from their service prior
th
to the judgment and after 6 PRC was enforced; they are
entitled for one notional increment of pay.
20. Having regard to the discussions made hereinabove
and the judicial pronouncements, the present writ petitions
are allowed.
21. The respondents are directed to give one notional
increment of pay to the petitioner(s) and pay the arrears
accrued thereof in their pensionary benefits within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of
this order.
22. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J)
Dated:31 /08/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R.
Uploaded on
3.9.2026
7