ORDER : The short but interesting point which arises in these petitions is ‘whether the petitioners who retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation can claim the benefit of an annual increment, which did not accrue while they were in service?’ 2. The petitioners are retired employees of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. Detailed reference to the factual aspect of the service rendered is unnecessary. The relevant service particulars are the following: Sl. No. Name of the petitioner Designation D.O.B. Date of entry into service Date of retirement Date of next increment 1. G. Raju Assistant 12.06.1952 01.07.1980 30.06.2012 01.07.2012 2. Sri Sidda Shetty Senior Assistant 05.03.1952 07.05.1973 31.03.2012 01.04.2012 3. Sri C.P. Mundinamani Assistant 12.03.1947 11.02.1969 31.03.2005 01.04.2005 4. Sri C.H. Barki Junior Engineer (Ele) 13.03.1947 21.04.1976 31.03.2005 01.04.2005 5. Sri V.N. Malode Junior Engineer (Ele) 15.04.1949 17.09.1971 30.04.2007 01.05.2007 3. The petitioners claim that they having rendered 365 days of continuous service as on the date of their respective retirement are entitled for the benefits of annual increment which became due on the very following day of retirement. The petitioners contend that they are entitled to be sanctioned and paid annual increment for the last year of service rendered. The claim made by 2nd petitioner having been turned down by issuance of an endorsement dated 21.12.2012 vide Annexure-H, all the petitioners being similarly placed, filed these petitions for quashing the said endorsement and for issuing a writ of mandamus against the respondents to grant one annual increment and extend all the monetary benefits. 4. Sri K. Srinivasa, learned advocate contended that the petitioners having rendered uninterrupted service prior to the dates of their respective retirement, earned the annual increment and the non-sanctioning of such increment amounts to withholding of increment, which is nothing but an act of penalty. He submitted that the increment which was earned by putting 12 months’ continuous service cannot be denied on the ground that the petitioners retired from service on the last day of the 12th month i.e., a day prior to the date on which the increment would have accrued in the ordinary course. Placing reliance on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PENSIONS AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, NEW DELHI & OTHERS Vs. Placing reliance on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PENSIONS AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, NEW DELHI & OTHERS Vs. R. MALAKONDAIAH & OTHERS, 2002 (4) ALT 550 (D.B.), he contended that the petitioners have been deprived of their duly entitled benefit of one annual increment without any justification. 5. Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, learned advocate for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that the annual increment would be sanctioned from the day following that on which it is earned, as per Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ Service Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’) and, as the petitioners retired from service before the date on which the annual increment became due, the increment could not be sanctioned. He submitted that all the petitioners being similarly placed, endorsement issued to the 2nd petitioner vide Annexure-H is applicable to all, as all of them fall under the same category. He also raised the issue of delay and laches in filing of these petitions, particularly by the petitioner Nos. 3 to 5, who retired during March, 2005/April, 2007. 6. Considered the rival contentions and perused the writ record. 7. A person who joins service would be entitled to future increment in scale of pay on the anniversary day of his appointment. In other words, the future increment would be reckoned on the first day of the month after completion of one year from the date the employee was appointed. An employee retires under the applicable rules in the afternoon of the month in which he attains the prescribed superannuation age. 8. The Regulations provide for ‘DRAWALS AND POSTPONEMENTS OF INCREMENTS’. Regulation No. 40(1), to the extent it is relevant for consideration of these petitions reads as follows: “An increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned.” 9. The Service Regulations are statutory. “Increment” has a definite concept in the service laws. It is conceptually different from revision of pay scale. “Increment” is an increase or addition in a fixed scale. It is a regular increase in salary on such scale. 10. In STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JASWANT SINGH KANWAR, (2014) 13 SCC 622 , Apex Court has held as follows: “13. “Increment” has a definite concept in service law jurisprudence. It is conceptually different from revision of pay scale. “Increment” is an increase or addition in a fixed scale. It is a regular increase in salary on such scale. 10. In STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JASWANT SINGH KANWAR, (2014) 13 SCC 622 , Apex Court has held as follows: “13. “Increment” has a definite concept in service law jurisprudence. It is an increase or addition on a fixed scale; it is a regular increase in salary on such a scale. As noted by this Court in SBI v. Central Govt. Labour Court, (1972) 3 SCC 595 , under the labour and industrial laws, an increment is when in a timescale of pay an employee advances from the lower point of scale to the higher by periodic additions. In other words, it is addition in the same scale and not to a higher scale. An increment is an incidence of employment and an employee gets an increment by working the full year and drawing full salary.” 11. In the case of A. DEVADASS Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, ILR 1994 KAR 2489, it has been held that when an employee retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation, all the benefits have to be calculated with reference to his pay and qualifying service as on the date of his reaching the age of superannuation and the employee is entitled to “increments” only during the period when he had a legal right to continue in service, that is upto the age of superannuation. It has been further held “that the employee is entitled to annual increments only during the period of service upto the date of superannuation, that is the date during which he had the right to continue in service and he will not be entitled for any annual increment for the period subsequent to the date of superannuation, even if he is continued in service thereafter, due to unavoidable reasons.” 12. An employee retires automatically on the day he completes the age of superannuation. A person attains a specific age on the day falling before the anniversary of his birthday or in other words on the day preceding the anniversary. 13. In PRABHU DAYAL SESMA Vs. An employee retires automatically on the day he completes the age of superannuation. A person attains a specific age on the day falling before the anniversary of his birthday or in other words on the day preceding the anniversary. 13. In PRABHU DAYAL SESMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER, (1986) 4 SCC 59 , Apex Court has held as follows: “9………In calculating a person’s age, the day of his birth must be counted as a whole day and he attains the specified age on the day preceding, the anniversary of his birthday…….” 14. In Malakondaiah’s case, finding that there is no rule, which stipulates that an employee must continue in service for being extended the benefit for the service already rendered by him, it was held that the benefit of the yearlong service cannot be denied on the plea that the employee ceased to be in service on the day on which he was to have been paid the increment. To arrive at the said conclusion, reliance has been placed on the decision in S. BANERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, 1990 SCC (L&S) 160. 15. In my view the facts situation in S. Banerjee’s case is completely different. Therein, the appellant filed an application for voluntary retirement which was accepted from the forenoon of 01.01.1986. In that view of the matter, he was found to be entitled to the benefit of paragraph 17.3 of the recommendations of the pay commission. 16. Malakondaiah’s case has no application to these petitions, as the Regulation, reproduced in para 8 supra, specifically provides that the increment accrues from the day following the date on which it is earned. Such a rule being absent in Malakondaiah’s case, it was held that the benefit of year-long service cannot be denied to the employee on the ground he ceased to be in service. In view of the Regulation, extracted in para 8 supra, it is not permissible to apply the ratio of law, as appearing in Malakondaiah’s case, to these petitions. Thus, Malakondaiah’s case has no application and is clearly distinguishable. 17. The ratio of law laid down in the case of A. Devadass (supra), applies to these petitions. In view of the Regulation, extracted in para 8 supra, it is not permissible to apply the ratio of law, as appearing in Malakondaiah’s case, to these petitions. Thus, Malakondaiah’s case has no application and is clearly distinguishable. 17. The ratio of law laid down in the case of A. Devadass (supra), applies to these petitions. There being no dispute that on the date the petitioners reached the age of superannuation, the increment which they are claiming had not accrued, there is no merit in the claim that they ought to have been sanctioned annual increment for the period of service rendered till the date of retirement. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were sanctioned and paid the annual increment at the beginning of the last year of their respective service, i.e., on the date the increment accrued. In a year, there can be sanction and payment of only one increment, unless there is promotion or revision of pay scale, which is not the case herein. The petitioners have not established existence of a legal right in their favour and a corresponding legal duty on the respondents to sanction and disburse increment claimed by them. The pre-requisite for issue of a writ of mandamus being absent, no such writ can be issued. 18. In view of the foregoing, the respondents are justified in not sanctioning annual increment to the petitioners, as the same would have accrued a day after the petitioners legally ceased to be in service i.e., on account of reaching the age of superannuation. The decision arrived at vide Annexure-H being neither arbitrary nor illegal is not liable to be interfered with. In the result, the petitions stand dismissed. No costs.