Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Chandrasekhar N Shrigondekar vs Earth Sciences on 2 December, 2024
1 OA No. 815/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.815/2024
Date of Decision:02nd December,2024
CORAM: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Mr. Santosh Mehra, Member (A)
Shri Chandrasekhar N Shrigondekar, Son of Laate
Shri Narayan Gangadhar Shrigondekar, age about 69
years, Retired as Assistant Meteorologist Grade II,
from the office of Deputy Director General of Meteor-
ology (Surface Instruments) Shivaji Nagar, Pune
411005. Presently residing at Flat No 3, Prathamesh
Appartment Kadolkar Colony, Talegaon Dabhade,
Pune, Maharashtra PIN 410506. Email ID:
[email protected]
-Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. Anupam Chattopadhyay)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry
Earth Sciences, H6QF+X74, Prithwi Bhavan, Lodi
Road, Opposite India Habitat Centre, Old Prem
Nagar, Block M, Lodi Colony, New Delhi 110003.
2. Head, Climate Research and Services, India
Meteorological Department, Shivaji Nagar, Pune
411005, Maharashtra.
-Respondents
(By Advocate Ms. Ashwathi Sunil i/b Mr. B K Ashok)
ORDER (Oral)
Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
We have heard learned counsel for the appli- cant and learned proxy counsel for the respondents. 2 OA No. 815/2024
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has retired on 30th June, 2015. The applicant is entitled to notional increment in terms of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 decided on 11th April, 2023, in which it is held that the employees who have put in one year's continuous service from 01st July of the year till 30th June of the next year are entitled to get notional in- crement.
3. In the case of The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani (supra), Supreme Court has also held that the increment shall be subject to previous satisfactory work and good conduct.
4. In the case of The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani (supra), Supreme Court has held thus:-
"19. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra) while dealing with the same issue has observed and held in paragraph 24 as under:-
"24. Law Is settled that where entitlement to receive a benefit crystallises in law its denial would be arbitrary unless It Is for a valid reason. The only reason for denying benefit of Increment, culled out from the scheme is that the central government servant is not holding the post on the day when the increment becomes payable. This cannot be a valid ground for denying Increment since the day following the date on which increment is earned only serves the purpose of 3 OA No. 815/2024 ensuring completion of a year's service with good conduct and no other purpose can be culled out for it. The concept of day following which the Increment is earned has otherwise no purpose to achieve. In isolation of the purpose it serves the fixation of day succeeding the date of entitlement has no intelligible differentia nor any object is to be achieved by it. The central government servant retiring on 30th June has already completed a year of service and the Increment has been earned provided his conduct was good. It would thus be wholly arbitrary if the Increment earned by the central government employee on the basis of his good conduct for a year is denied only on the ground that he was not in employment on the succeeding day when Increment became payable. In the case of a government servant retiring on 30th of June the next day on which Increment falls due/becomes payable looses significance and must give way to the right of the government servant to receive Increment due to satisfactory services of a year so that the scheme is not construed in a manner that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined In Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The scheme for payment of increment would have to be read as whole and one part of Article 151 of CSR cannot be read in Isolation so as to frustrate the other part particularly when the other part creates right in the central government servant to receive Increment. This would ensure that scheme of progressive appointment remains intact and the rights earned by a government servant remains protected and are not denied due to a fortuitous circumstance."
20. Similar view has also been expressed by different High Courts, namely, the Gujarat High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Orissa High Court and the Madras High Court. As observed hereinabove, to interpret Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations in the manner in which the appellants have understood and/or Interpretated would lead to arbitrariness and denying a government servant the benefit of annual Increment which he has already earned while rendering specified period of service with good conduct and efficiently in the last preceding year. It would be punishing a person for no fault of him. As observed herelnabove, the increment can be withheld only by way of punishment or he has not performed the duty efficiently. Any Interpretation which would lead to arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness should be avoided. If the Interpretation as suggested on behalf of the appellants and the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Is accepted, in that case it would tantamount to denying a government servant the annual increment which he has earned for the services he has rendered over a year subject to his good behaviour. The entitlement to receive Increment 4 OA No. 815/2024 therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day."
5. From these observations, it is clear that the employees are entitled to increment subject to their good conduct and satisfactory work in the previous year.
6. Learned proxy counsel for the respondents points out that Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. versus M. Siddaraj, Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400/2024 in Special Leave Petition (c) No. 4722/2021 has held thus:-
"We are informed that a large number of fresh writ petitions have been filed.
To prevent any further litigation and confusion, by of an interim order we direct that:
(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid.
(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be paid.
(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the appellate court.
(d) In case any retired employee has filed any application for intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable from the month in which the application for intervention/impleadment was filed.5 OA No. 815/2024
This interim order will continue till further orders of this Court. However, no person who has already received an enhanced pension including arrears, will be affected by the directions in (a), (c) and (d)."
7. DoPT has now issued a memorandum dated 14th October, 2024 in which following decision was taken:-
"7. The matter has been examined in consultation with D/o Expenditure and D/o Legal Affairs. It is advised that in pursuance of the Order dated 06.09.2024 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above, action may be taken to allow the increment on 1st July/ 1st January to the Central Government employees who retired/are retiring a day before it became due i.e. on 30th June / 31st December and have rendered the requisite qualifying service as on the date of their superannuation with satisfactory work and good conduct for calculating the pension admissible to them. As specifically mentioned in the Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme court, grant of the notional increment on 1st January/ 1st July shall be reckoned only for the purpose of calculating the pension admissible and not for the purpose of calculation of other pensionary benefits."
8. In view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) and DoPT OM, following order is passed:-
(i) OA is allowed. Respondents shall grant one notional increment to the applicant on 01st July, 2023 subject to his previous good conduct and satisfactory work in the previous year.
(ii) The applicant is not entitled to arrears nor pensionary benefits.6 OA No. 815/2024
(iii) This order is subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in Review Petition vide diary no. 36418 of 2024 pending before the Supreme Court.
(iv) Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No costs.
(Santosh Mehra) (Justice M.G. Sewlikar) Member (A) Member (J) Nk