THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 194 of 2006 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not releasing petitioner’s increments after expiry of stipulated period in proceedings dated 12.8.2003 in File No.P1/1(117)/03-MCL as arbitrary and illegal; consequently, to direct the respondent to release increments of the petitioner. Under the order dated 12.8.2003, petitioner was imposed with penalty of postponement of annual increment for a period of six months which shall not have the effect on future increments. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that even after expiry of six months, his increments were not released. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It would suffice to notice the reply given in para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, which reads as under: “It is further submitted that with regard to the non-release of increments to the petitioner after the expiry of six (6) months period the details of increments drawn are as follows: Annual increment last drawn on 1.10.2002 Rs.6985/- + 15.PP Annual increment due 1.10.2003 A.I. deferred for a period of Six months 06 months ---------------- A.I. due on 1.4.2004. --------------- It is a fact that the petitioner was retired from the services of the respondent Corporation with effect from 31.1.2004. Hence he is not eligible for restoration of annual increment and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner was retired on 31.1.2004. But his next annual increment due was on 1.4.2004. The petitioner was retired three months before the annual increment due. Since the petitioner r5etired on superannuation three months before the next annual increment due he is not eligible for restoration of annual increment and there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the rules”. From the above, it is clear that after deferring the annual increment for a period of six months, the next annual increment became due only on 1.4.2004, whereas, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.1.2004. Therefore, the question of granting further increments after expiry of six months’ period does not arise. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 25-01-2011. MVB.