Annual Increments Accrued Through Service Cannot Be Permanently Denied Solely Due to Non-Completion of Probation.

The Petitioner, an employee of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL), joined IRCON International Ltd. on March 1, 2018, through the proper channel with pay protection

His appointment order stipulated a two-year probation period, during which increments would be "charged" only upon successful completion

While IRCON issued a certificate acknowledging that his annual increment dates (June 1, 2018, and June 1, 2019) were "effective" and protected, they were not added to his basic pay as he had not finished probation

The Petitioner resigned from IRCON on December 18, 2019, to join Grid India (another CPSE) before his probation ended

Consequently, IRCON refused to charge the two earned increments, leading to a depressed pay fixation that followed him to his new employer

1. Whether the writ petition is barred by delay and laches given the five-year gap since the Petitioner left IRCON

2. Whether annual increments accrue upon rendering service during the tenure, or if they remain contingent upon formal probation clearance

3. Whether IRCON’s internal probation policy can override the DPE pay revision framework and general service practices across CPSEs

Incorrect pay fixation constitutes a "continuing wrong" and a recurring cause of action (M.R. Gupta v. Union of India).

Annual increments are earned by rendering service with good conduct for the prescribed period and are not a bounty (Director (Admn. and HR), KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani).

Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) guidelines and IRCON Circular No. 75/2017 mandate a uniform 3% annual increment rate across CPSEs.

The Court reasoned that IRCON’s own communication acknowledged the increments as "effective" from specific dates, thereby separating the accrual of the right from the timing of the payment.

Since the Petitioner’s performance reports (APRs) were "Very Good" and his integrity was "Beyond Doubt," there was no substantive legal basis—such as misconduct or inefficiency—to withhold the increments.

While IRCON argued its probation policy deferred increments, the Court held that such a policy cannot be used to permanently forfeit earned pay when an employee moves between CPSEs through the proper channel.

To allow such a forfeiture would result in a permanent, cumulative depression of pay and retiral benefits, which is disproportionate to the mere lack of a formal probation-clearance order.

While IRCON could refuse "deemed confirmation," it could not permanently deny increments earned through actual service.

IRCON was directed to set aside the impugned orders to the extent they denied the charging of increments; IRCON must issue a revised last pay certificate (LPC) within eight weeks, and Grid India was directed to subsequently refix the Petitioner's pay based on the revised LPC.

The petition was allowed in these terms.