ORDER : The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following relief : “That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the order dated 25.4.2014 issued by respondent No.1 thereby rejecting the representation made by the petitioner seeking grant of regular increment and further the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to award the regular increment to the petitioner w.e.f. July, 2013 as per the instructions issued by the State Government of Himachal Pradesh contained in Chapter 22 of the Handbook of Personnel Matters with all consequential benefits and further the interest @ 12 % per annum from the date it fell due till its realization may be granted on the amount fell due after summoning the entire record and justice be done. 2. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, he was appointed, as Patwari in the month of February, 1983, thereafter he was selected, as Kanungo, in the month of March, 1984. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar and later on appointed, as Tehsildar. The petitioner retired on 31.5.2013, as Tehsildar, Paonta Sahib, however keeping in view his service career, the petitioner was granted extension of service for one year w.e.f. 1.6.2013 to 31.5.2014. As per the Notification dated 30.5.2013, the period of extension shall not be entitled to the petitioner for any additional increment/additional financial benefits, except last pay drawn on 31.5.2013, but the regular increment has not been denied/debarred, as per the instructions of the State Government of Himachal Pradesh, during the period of extension, the petitioner is entitled to grant increment to full pay and allowances and the said period of extension is counted for qualifying service for the purpose of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits. Since, the petitioner was not granted the regular increment, which was due to him in the month of July, 2013, he made a representation to respondent No.1/competent authority, but respondent No.1/competent authority did not take any decision upon the said representation made by the petitioner. The petitioner again made a representation on 7.2.2014, the same was rejected and communicated to him vide letter dated 25.4.2014. 3. The petitioner again made a representation on 7.2.2014, the same was rejected and communicated to him vide letter dated 25.4.2014. 3. Reply to the petition has been filed and it is averred that the petitioner was superannuated as Tehsildar on 31.5.2013 and one year extension in service was granted to him w.e.f. 1.6.2013 to 31.5.2014 with the condition that during the period of extension, he will not be entitled for any additional increment/additional financial benefits except last pay drawn as on 31.5.2013 and as such, the instant petition is not maintainable and prays for dismissal of the same. 4. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was granted extension for a period of one year w.e.f. 1.6.2013 to 31.5.2014, to the post of Tehsildar, as he has served the respondents-department and so, he was entitled for the increments and other consequential benefits being a modular employee. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgments in 1998 (5) Supreme Court Cases 87, titled Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh vs. Hari Om Sharma and others and in 2017 (9) Supreme Court Cases, 395, titled State of Punjab and another vs. Dharam Pal, on this aspect. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that when the extension for a period of one year was granted to the petitioner, he shall not be entitled for any additional increment/additional financial benefits except last pay drawn on 31.5.2013. He has further argued that as the aforesaid law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is only for a promotional benefits and not for the extension period after retirement, and so the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner being a modular employee, he is entitled for the grant of annual increments and other consequential benefits for the extended period of one year after his retirement. 7. 6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner being a modular employee, he is entitled for the grant of annual increments and other consequential benefits for the extended period of one year after his retirement. 7. At this stage, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner, who superannuated, as Tehsildar on 31.5.2013, had given extension for a period of one year, vide Notification dated 30.5.2013 (Annexure P-1), relevant portion of the extract reads as under : NOTIFICATION “The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to grant extension in service to Shri Rajinder Fishta, Tehsildar, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour at Nahan, for one year with effect from 1.6.2013 to 31.5.2014 in the exigency of Government work in the pay scale Rs.10300-34800 + 5000 (Grade Pay) subject to the condition that during the period of extension he shall not be entitled for any additional increment/additional financial benefits except last pay drawn on 31.5.2013. Shri Rajinder Fishta, Tehsildar shall retire from Government service on 31.5.2014 afternoon. This issues with prior approval of Finance Department obtained vide their Diary No.52535613, Fin (C)B(7)-2/99 dated 21.5.2013.” 8. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation vide letter dated 19th November, 2013 (Annexure P-2) to the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, for regular increment w.e.f. July, 2013, but the same was not granted to him and his representation was rejected, vide letter dated 25.4.2014 (Annexure P-4), which reads as under : “I am directed to refer to your letter No.BLSEA- 1(1)296/2013-11309, dated 29.3.2014 on the subject cited above and to say that order of extension in services of Shri Rajinder Singh Fishta, Tehsildar (DOR 31.5.2013) was specific, hence no increment is due in his favour.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled State of Punjab and another vs. Dharam Pal, 2017 (9) Supreme Court Cases, 395, relevant portion of the extract reads as under : “In the instant case, the Rules do not prohibit grant of pay scale. The decision of the High Court granting the benefit gets support from the principles laid down in P. Grover and Hari Om Sharma. As far as the authority in A. Francis is concerned, we would like to observe that the said case has to rest on its own facts. The decision of the High Court granting the benefit gets support from the principles laid down in P. Grover and Hari Om Sharma. As far as the authority in A. Francis is concerned, we would like to observe that the said case has to rest on its own facts. We may clearly state that by an incorporation in the order or merely by giving an undertaking in all circumstances would not debar an employee to claim the benefits of the officiating position. We are disposed to think that the controversy is covered by the ratio laid down in Hari Om Sharma and resultantly we hold that the view expressed by the High Court is absolutely impeccable.” 10. In Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh vs. Hari Om Sharma and others, 1998 (5) Supreme Court Cases, 87, has held as under : “Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to contend that when the respondent was promoted in stop-gap arrangement as Junior Engineer-I, he had given an undertaking to the appellant that on the basis of stop-gap arrangement, he would not claim promotion as of right nor would he claim any benefit pertaining to that post. The argument, to say the least, is preposterous. Apart from the fact that the Government in its capacity as a model employer cannot be permitted to raise such an argument, the undertaking which is said to constitute an agreement between the parties cannot be enforced at law. The respondent being an employee of the appellant had to break his period of stagnation although, as we have found earlier, he was the only person amongst the non-diploma holders available for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer-I and was, therefore, likely to be considered for promotion in his own right. An agreement that if a person is promoted to the higher post or put to officiate on that post or, as in instant case, a stop-gap arrangement is made to place him on the higher post, he would not claim higher salary or other attendant benefits would be contrary to law and also against public policy . it would, therefore, be unenforceable in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872.” 11. It is relevant to refer Chapter 22.2 of the Handbook on Personal matters, which reads as under : “22.2 Distinction between Extension and Re-employment. The term “extension” is different from the term “re-employment”. it would, therefore, be unenforceable in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872.” 11. It is relevant to refer Chapter 22.2 of the Handbook on Personal matters, which reads as under : “22.2 Distinction between Extension and Re-employment. The term “extension” is different from the term “re-employment”. Extension in service is continuance in service and the incumbent does not superannuate or retire on reaching the date of superannuation. Further the period of extension counts for qualifying service for the purpose of pension, gratuity and other retirement purposes, besides entitling the incumbent to full pay and allowances and increments etc. In addition the incumbent remains a member of service he was so appointed and will be bound by the specific Rules governing the service. Re-employment is quite different. Employment after actual superannuation or retirement is called “reemployment” IN this case the reemployment may be from the date following the date of pension and his pay is fixed under special orders. A re-employed person is governed by the general rules governing service conditions of a Government servant and such other Rules as may be specified in the terms of reemployment. The period of reemployment, does not qualify as service for pension and other benefits, in so far as his service from he had superannuated is concerned. However, the eligibility of a reemployed person to a second pension based on the basis of a re-employment will depend on the terms of the reemployment.” 12. From the aforesaid discussions, it is quite clear that the petitioner was required to be granted annual increment w.e.f. July, 2013, as per the Rules and law, as stated hereinabove. In these circumstances, the instant petition is allowed by quashing impugned order dated 25.4.2014 and the respondents concerned are directed to pay annual increment for the extended period of one year w.e.f. July, 2013 alongwith all consequential benefits, if any, within a period of four months from today. No order as to costs. 13. In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.