SANTOSH ATTRI vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS — CWP/10935/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226/227. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 10-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010591272026

e-Filing Number

07-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/21053/2026

Filing Date

07-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/10935/2026

Registration Date

08-Apr-2026

Judge

Justice (To Be Nominated) , Mr. Justice Parmod Goyal

Coram

Justice (To Be Nominated) , Mr. Justice Parmod Goyal

Category

97.7 - VIRES (GOVT. SERVICE HARYANA) ( 870 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226/227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANTOSH ATTRI

    Adv. PIYUSH AGGARWAL

  2. 2.state of haryana and ors

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

  2. 2.state of haryana and ors

  3. 3.District Education Officer, Jhajjar

  4. 4.govt senior secondary

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Justice (To Be Nominated),mr. Justice Parmod GoyalView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that petitioner Santosh Attri is entitled to an annual increment that fell due after his superannuation, as the increment was earned upon completing one year of satisfactory service on June 30th. The court relied on settled Supreme Court precedent in C.P. Mundinamani and M. Siddaraj cases, which established that an employee cannot be prejudiced by the fortuitous timing of an increment's maturity relative to superannuation. The State of Haryana was directed to release the due benefits within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/10935/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that petitioner Santosh Attri is entitled to an annual increment that fell due after his superannuation, as the increment was earned upon completing one year of satisfactory service on June 30th. The court relied on settled Supreme Court precedent in C.P. Mundinamani and M. Siddaraj cases, which established that an employee cannot be prejudiced by the fortuitous timing of an increment's maturity relative to superannuation. The State of Haryana was directed to release the due benefits within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case