Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Ms Ruchira Karmarkar vs Employees Providend Fund Organisation ... on 3 October, 2024
1 OA No.1136/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.1136/2023
Dated this Thursday the 03rd October, 2024
CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
1. Ms. Ruchira Karmalkar
Age-61 years.
Wife of Ravindra Karmalkar.
Retired as Section Supervisor
from Regional Office-Bandra
Residing at B-506, Sai Arpan CHS Ltd,
Near Mysore Colony, FCI,
H.P.Nagar (Chembur (West), Mumbai -
400 074
Mobile No. 9869253027
Email-id: [email protected])
2. Satyavijay Vishnu Sawant
Age 62 years.
Son of Vishnu Sawant
Retired as Section Supervisor
from Regional Office-Bandra
Residing at G-304, West View CHS,
Charkop Sector-2, Kandivali (West),
Mumbai-400 067
Mobile No.9821120177
Email-id: [email protected]
3. Ashok Shivram Bane
Age-62 years.
Son of Shivram Bane,
Retired as Enforcement Officer /
Accounts Officer from Regional Office-
Bandra
Page 1 of 28
2 OA No.1136/2023
Residing at 2/118, Anand Vihar CHS,
New Anand Nagar,
Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400 055.
Mobile No.9820989052
Email Id:[email protected]
4.Mrs. Mangala Jayawant Varsolkar
Age - 62 years,
Wife of Jayawant Varsolkar
Retired as Section Supervisorr
from Regional Office-Kandivali-1
Residing at 171/41, Shivner HSG Socy.
Sector-1, Near Dena Bank,
Kandivali (West), Mumbai-67
Mobile No.9969570577
5. Nandkishor Pawaskar
Age - 63 years,
Son of Ramchandra Pawaskar
Retired as Section Supervisor
from Regional Office-Bandra
Residing at 2/38, Shanti Niwas,
Khedgalli, Annasaheb Patil Marg,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025.
Mobile No. 9869243921
6. Mrs. Trupti Prakash Betkar
Age 64 years
Wife of Prakash Betkar
Retired as Enforcement Officer /
Accounts Officer from Regional Office-
Kandivali-2.
Residing at 5, Amogh Society,
Talepakhadi, Eksar Road,
Borivali (West), Mumbai-400 091
Mobile No.9869562229
7. Narayan Vasant Bandekar
Age-65 years
Page 2 of 28
3 OA No.1136/2023
Son of Vasant Bandekar
Retired as Section Supervisor,
From Regional Office- Bandra.
Residing at Victory Heights, B Wing,
1109, Near Suvidya School, Gorai-2,
Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400 091.
Mobile No.9867418771.
Email [email protected]
8.Dilip Phanasopkar
Age - 65 years
Son of Govind Phanasopkar,
Retired as Sr. Social Security Assistant
from Regional Office-Bandra
Residing at 2/314, Kamgar Nagar CHS.
Four Bunglow, Navkiram Marg,
Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 058
Mobile No. 9869715999
9. Jotiram Bandu Shinde
Age-66 years
Son of Bandu Shinde,
Retired as Section Supervisor
from Regional Office-Bandra
Residing at Shiv Bhakti CHS
Ltd, Plot No.119, Flat No.1102,
Sector-50 E, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400 706.
Mobile No. 7715038676
Email-id: [email protected]
10. Chhedilal Maikulal Vaishya
Age-66 years.
S/o Maikulal Vaishya
Retired as Section Supervisor
from Regional Office-Vashi
Residing at A/405, Laxmi Niwas CHSL,
N.M.Joshi Marg, Byculla (West),
Mumbai-400 027. Mobile No. 9323208179
Page 3 of 28
4 OA No.1136/2023
11. Mrs. Alka Atmaram Ghagare
Age - 66 years.
Wife of Atmaram Ghagare
Retired as Section Supervisor
From Regional Office-Bandra
Residing at 402/B Mugdha CHS Ltd.,
Opp.Shreepal Nagar-Satya Nagar,
Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400 092.
Mobile No.9619853086
Email id:[email protected]
12.Mrs. Sharayu Ramakant Shetye
Age - 66 years
Wife of Ramakant Shetye
Retired as Section Supervisor from
Regional Office, Kandivali
Residing at A/202, Shri Mangirish
CHS Ltd, Shimpoli Road, Chikuwadi,
Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400 092.
Mobile No.9869026581.
13. Smt Sapana R Achpal
Age-66 years.
Wife of Rajkumar Achpal
Residing at D/703, Arjun, N.L.
Complex, Dahisar (East),
Mumbai-400 068
Retired as Section Supervisor
from Regional Office-Bandra.
Mobile No 9987250067
Email-id: [email protected] )
14. Smt. Usha Milind Paricharak
Age-66 years
Wife of Milind Paricharak
Retired as Section Supervisor,
from Regional Office-Bandra
Residing at B/13, Swati, Amrut Kumbh
CHS, Chitale Path, Dadar (West), )
Page 4 of 28
5 OA No.1136/2023
Mumbai-400 028.
Mobile No.9869263975
Email-id:[email protected]
15. Mrs. Urmila Uday Kulkarni
Age-67 years,
Wife of Uday Kulkarni
C/o Shri Prabhakar Ganesh Kulkarni,
Retired as Section Supervisor,
From Regional Office-Bandra
Residing at B/33, Parijat, 3rd Floor,
Opp.M.E.T. Collage, Bandra
Reclamation, Bandra (West), Mumbai -
400 050.
Mobile No.9892760833
Email id:udaypk23yahoo.co.in
16.Smt Asha Atul Desai
Age - 67 years
Wife of Atul Desai
Retired as Section Supervisor
from Regional Office-Kandivali
Residing at Veer Abhimanyu CHS Ltd.
2nd Floor, Flat No. 201,
Shimpoli Road, Kasturpark, Borivali
(West), Mumbai-400 092.
Mobile No. 9967297974
Email-id: [email protected]
17.Smt Neela Maheshkumar Desai
Age-67 years
Wife of Maheshkumar Desai
Retired as Section Supervisor
from Regional Office-Bandra
Residing at 12A, Pallavi Co-op.
Housing Society, Near BMC Office-K
Ward, Azad Road, Andheri (East),
Mumbai-400 069
Page 5 of 28
6 OA No.1136/2023
Mobile No. 9167589538
Email-id: [email protected]
18. Mrs. Chhaya Suresh Rasam
Age-67 years
Wife of Suresh Rasam
Retired as Enforcement Officer
Accounts Officer from Regional
Office-Kandivali 1.
Residing at 5 Ideal Apartment Gokul
Society, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East),
Mumbai - 400 059.
Mobile No.9892420060
Email [email protected]
19.Subhash Dattatray Sawant
Age-67 years,
Son of Dattatray Sawant
Retired as Section Supervisor,
from Regional Office-Bandra
Residing at A/203, Ram Tower CHS,
Dharma Nagar, Link Road, Borivali
(West), Mumbai-400 091
Mobile No. 9594983957
Email-id: [email protected]
20. Mrs Surekha Hemchandra Goraksha
Age-68 yrs.
Wife of Hemchandra Goraksha
Retired as Enforcement Officer/
Accounts Officer
from Regional Office-Bandra
Residing at 1, Chandrabhaga Bhuvan,
D.L. Vaidya Road, Dadar (West),
Mumbai-400 028.
Mobile No. 9930211386
Email-id [email protected]
Page 6 of 28
7 OA No.1136/2023
21.Govardhan Ramaswami Jilla
Age-68 years
Son of Ramaswami Jilla )
Retired as Asstt. PF Commissioner
from Regional Office-Kandivali
Residing at Cosmic Heights B-504,
Bhakti Park, Wadala (East)
Mumbai- 400 037
Mobile No. 9819096949
Email-id: [email protected]
22. Mrs. Usha Vilas Vartak
Age - 69 years
Wife of Vilas Vartak
Retired as Section Supervisor from
Regional Office-Bandra
Residing at 701, Mukund Kunj, Plot
No.109, M.G. Road, Road No.6,
L.T. Nagar, Goregaon (West)
Mumbai - 400 104
Mobile No.9967461469
23.Prabhakar Narayan Nagwekar
Age -69 years
Son of Narayan Nagwekar
Retired as Enforcement Officer
Accounts Officer from Regional Office-
Thane
Residing at 1/304, Omkar CHS,
Gourishankar Wadi-2,
Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-
400 075
Mobile No.9967882759
24. Yadagiri Chandraiah Sangishetty
Age-69 years
Son of Chandraiah Sangishetty
Retired as Asstt. PF Commissioner,
Page 7 of 28
8 OA No.1136/2023
from Regional Office-Vashi
Residing at M2/B 201, Pratiksha
Nagar, Sion Koliwada, Mumbai-400 022.
Mobile No. 9819275640
Email-id: [email protected]
25. Andrew John D'Britto.
Age-70 years
Retired as Section Supervisor
from Regional Office-Kandivali-1
Residing at Nishigandh Jeladi Vatar,
PO-Agashi via Virar,
Dist: Palghar. PIN-401 301.
Mobile No.9892615163
Email-id:[email protected]
26.Mrs. Usha Hari
Age : 71 years
Wife of T.N. Hari,
Retired as Accounts Officer /
Enforcement Officer
From EPFO-Regional Office-Bandra
Residing at 5, Sita Sadan,
Nariman Road, Vile Parle (East),
Mumbai - 400 057
Mobile No.9867293553
Email-Id:[email protected]
27.Balaram Gangaram Pawar
Age - 72 years,
Son of Gangaram Pawar,
Retired as Enforcement Officer
Accounts Officer from Regional
Office-Thane
Residing at 102, Shree Krushna CHS
Ltd, Sector-20, Plot No. B-57,
Nerul (West), Navi Mumbai.
Mobile No. 9820672649
Page 8 of 28
9 OA No.1136/2023
28 Smt Mahınder Kaur Bharadwaj
Age-72 years
Wife of Ranjit Bharadwaj
Retired as Enforcement Officer
Accounts Officer from EPFO-RO-
Thane
Residing at D-101, Teakwood CHS
Ltd, Vasant Gardens,
Mulund (West), Mumbai-400 080.
Mobile-9326414118
Email-id: [email protected])
29. Smt. Swati Uttam Goraksha
Age-71 years,
Wife of Uttam Goraksha
Retired as Enforcement Officer
Accounts Officer from Regional
Office-Thane
Residing at 502, Guruprerana CHS,
Deshmukhwadi, Mithagar Road, JRK.
Mulund (East), Mumbai - 400 081.
Mobile No.8767985639
Email Id:[email protected]
30.Vasant Keshav Sankpal
Age - 72 years
Son of Keshav Sankpal,
Retired as Enforcement Officer /
Accounts Officer from Regional
Office-Vashi.
Residing at Gurukrupa CHS Ltd, Bldg
No.A/28 Room No.1/2, Sector-3,
Sanpada, Navi Mumbai.
Mobile no.9869846281
[email protected]
31. Smt. Jaya Prakash Chaudhari
Age-68 years,
Wife of Prakash Chaudhari
Page 9 of 28
10 OA No.1136/2023
Retired as Section Supervisor
From Regional Office-Bandra
Residing at C-801, RNA Complex,
Santacruz, Kalina, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai, Mobile No.8104879023
Email-id:[email protected] ... Applicants
(By Advocate Shri Vishal Shirke)
Versus
1. The Union of India Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Labour & Employment.
Govt. of India, Shram Shakti
Bhavan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi-110 011 )
2. The Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, Employees' Provident
Fund Organisation, Bhavishya Nidhi
Bhavan, 14 Bhikaiji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110 066
3. The Additional Central Provident
Fund Commissioner - Mumbai
HQ 341, 6th Floor, Bhavishya Nidhi
Bhavan, Bandra (E),
Mumbai-400 051.
4. The Additional Central Provident
Fund Commissioner Mumbai-II
(Zone-Thane), 5th Floor, Vardan
Commercial Complex Wagale Estate
Road No.16, Thane - 00 602 ... Respondents
( By Advocate Dr. V.S. Masurkar )
Page 10 of 28
11 OA No.1136/2023
ORDER
Per: Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
The applicants, who are 31 in number, have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to claim the following reliefs:
"8(a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the respondents and after examining the same, direct the respondents to grant one increment to the applicants on 01st of July of their respective years of retirement with all consequential benefits.
(b) This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to re-fix the pension and pensionary benefits of the applicants on account of grant of one increment and to pay them difference of pension and pensionary benefits along with interest @12% per annum.
(c)Costs of the application be provided for.
(d) Any other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case be passed."
2. The applicants are all retired employees who retired on superannuation on 30th June of different years. They have filed this OA jointly to claim notional increment on the next day of their retirement i.e 01st July. One applicant has Page 11 of 28 12 OA No.1136/2023 retired on 30th June, 2011, four applicants have retired on 30th June, 2012, one applicant is retired on 30th June, 2013, three applicants have retired on 30th June, 2014, three applicants have retired on 30th June, 2015, five applicants have retired on 30th June, 2016, six applicants have retired on 30th June, 2017, two applicants have retired on 30th June, 2018, one applicant has retired on 30th June, 2019, one applicant has retired on 30th June, 2020, three applicants have retired on 30th June, 2021 and one applicant has retired on 30th June, 2022.
2.1 They all have placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 dated 11th April, 2023, judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M. Balsubramaniyam Writ Petition No.8440/2011 dated 20th September, 2012 and decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Page 12 of 28 13 OA No.1136/2023 Ayyameperumal Vs. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai & 3 Ors., Writ Petition No.15732 of 2017 dated 15th September, 2017. They have further placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jaswant Singh Kanwar, 2014 (13) SCC 622 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh Shekhawat Vs. Union of India, 1999(6) SCC 459 and also in the case of Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar, 2002 (8) SCC 400 to claim the pension from the next date of retirement.
3. It is the case of the applicants that they are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not granting increment due to them on completion of one year of service since their last annual increment. It has been submitted that the issue is no more res-integra and is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Page 13 of 28 14 OA No.1136/2023 Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors (supra). It has been submitted that Government of India has fixed 01st July as uniform date of increment for all Central Government employees. Under the provisions of CCS(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, employees who complete six months and above as on 01st July are eligible to be granted increment. In support of their claim, they have submitted a copy of Rule 10 of CCS(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
4. It has been submitted that the applicants have made representations to the respondents for grant of benefit of one increment on completion of one full year of service. In the said representations, the applicants have specifically relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra). However, the respondents are not extending the benefits of judgment in favour of the applicants. It has been submitted that no decision on the representations of the applicants Page 14 of 28 15 OA No.1136/2023 have been taken by the respondents and, therefore, they have approached this Tribunal for issue of direction to the respondents to grant one notional increment to the applicants on 01 st July of their respective year of retirement with all consequential benefits.
5. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA. It has been submitted that 31 applicants have filed OA and Joint Application and signed as such on 20.11.2023. However, the MA dated 07.06.2024 was signed by only two applicants i.e applicants Nos.21 and 24 only. The MA actually for main piece of evidence as EPFO employee, which was not placed in the OA by the 31 applicants. In these circumstances, the OA as well as MA is liable to be dismissed with cost.
5.1 It has been submitted that cause of action varies from 30th June, 2011 to 30th June, 2022. In case of applicant No.30, cause of action Page 15 of 28 16 OA No.1136/2023 arose on 30th June, 2011, in case of applicants Nos.26 to 29, cause of action arose on 30 th June, 2012 and, therefore, the applicants grievance suffers from delay and laches and hence on this ground alone, the OA is liable to be dismissed with cost.
5.2 It has been submitted that grant of any reliefs to these type of applicants will be dent on public exchequer affecting the budgetary mandate from retrospectively and, therefore, the Parliament prescribed one year limitation in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. They have placed reliance on various decisions to emphasize that the preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction and limitation have to be decided first. For this, they have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Agarwal Vs. Nagreeka Exports reported in 2002(10) SCC 101. It has been further submitted that the applicants Page 16 of 28 17 OA No.1136/2023 have not mentioned in the OA whether they had unblemished service record and there were neither departmental proceedings nor any punishment against them. The increment is granted on the basis of unblemished service in the entire year.
Therefore, at this belated stage, when the service records are not available and when the applicants have not made any statement about unblemished service, the OA fails solely on this ground itself.
5.3 It has been submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. S.M. Kotrayya and Others, 1996 SCC (L&S) 1488 has held that mere fact that the applicants filed the belated application immediately after coming to know that in similar claims, relief had been granted by the Tribunal, is not a proper explanation to justify condonation of delay.
Page 17 of 28 18 OA No.1136/2023 5.4 It has been submitted that 31 applicants have annexed Rule 10 of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008. It is clear from the relief clause, 31 applicants are not aggrieved by the said rule and, hence, in absence of challenge to the legality and validity of the Rules, they are not entitled for any reliefs. The respondents have fully complied with these rules in the cases of applicants and, therefore, they all have accepted the full and final benefits at the time of retirement from service.
5.5 It has been submitted that the prayer by 31 applicants is totally different and distinct and, therefore, the said judgment relied upon by the applicants is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has been further submitted that the applicants have not submitted any evidence whether they were in service as on 30th June of the respective years. Page 18 of 28 19 OA No.1136/2023
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and carefully gone through the pleadings and judgements relied upon by them.
7. Regarding the contention of the respondents regarding delay and laches, we find that the notional increment will affect the pension of the applicants which is a recurring cause of action. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors (supra) has decided the issue on 11th April, 2023. The OA has been filed immediately after that on 22nd November, 2023. Therefore, delay in filing the application is condoned.
8. Regarding the second objection of the respondents that the 31 applicants have retired in different years and, therefore, joint petition cannot be allowed. We find that though the orders of retirement are different, all the applicants have retired on the same date of 30th June and Page 19 of 28 20 OA No.1136/2023 they have claimed notional increment from the next day i.e. 01st July. Therefore, there is common cause of action. Regarding the signature of all the applicants on the verification of Miscellaneous Application for Joint Petition, we find that all the 31 applicants have signed and, therefore Joint Petition is proper and is allowed.
9. We find that it is only the Miscellaneous Application No.592/2024 filed on 12th June, 2024 for production of copy of order dated 07th May, 2024 and for production of copies of Pension Payment Orders of the applicants, that the same was signed by the two applicants and the counsel. We find that the respondents have in their reply submitted that the applicants have not produced any evidence whether they have unblemished service record and they have retired on those dates mentioned in the OA, that this Miscellaneous Application was filed for producing Page 20 of 28 21 OA No.1136/2023 the copy of pension payment orders of the applicants. In view of the above, the objections raised by the respondents are rejected. We find that all the applicants have placed on record the copy of Pension Payment Orders (PPO)which shows that they have retired.
10. We are of the view that as per 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, the applicants are entitled to notional increment. The observations of the Supreme Court in the case of The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani (supra) are as under:-
"6. The short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is whether an employee who has earned the annual increment is entitled to the same despite the fact that he has retired on the very next day of earning the increment?
6.1 In the present case, the relevant provision is Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations which reads as under: -
"Drawals and postponements of increments 40(1). An increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned. An increment that has accrued shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment may be withheld Page 21 of 28 22 OA No.1136/2023 from an employee by the competent authority, if his conduct has not been good, or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an increment, the withholding authority shall state the period for which it is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments."
6.2. It is the case on behalf of the appellants that the word used in Regulation 40(1) is that an increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned and in the present case the increment accrued on the day when they retired and therefore, on that day they were not in service and therefore, not entitled to the annual increment which they might have earned one day earlier. It is also the case on behalf of the appellants that as the increment is in the form of incentive and therefore, when the employees are not in service there is no question of granting them any annual increment which as such is in the form of incentive.
6.3. At this stage, it is required to be noted that there are divergent views of various High Courts on the issue involved. The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the Kerala High Court have taken a contrary view and have taken the view canvassed on behalf of the appellants. On the other hand, the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi high Court in the case of Gopal Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 10509/2019 decided on 23.01.2020); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ A No. 13299/2020 decided on 29.06.2021); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal Vs. State of Odisha and Anr. (Writ Petition No. 17715/2020 decided on 30.07.2021); and the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (Letters Patent Appeal No. 868/2021) have taken a divergent view than the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and have taken the view that once an employee has earned the increment on completing one year service he cannot be denied the benefit of such annual increment on his attaining the age of superannuation and/or the day of retirement on the very next day.
6.4. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that the annual increment is in the form of incentive and to encourage an employee to perform well and therefore, once he is not in service, there is no question of grant of annual increment is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. In a given case, it may happen that the employee Page 22 of 28 23 OA No.1136/2023 earns the increment three days before his date of superannuation and therefore, even according to the Regulation 40(1) increment is accrued on the next day in that case also such an employee would not have one year service thereafter. It is to be noted that increment is earned on one year past service rendered in a time scale. Therefore, the aforesaid submission is not to be accepted.
6.5. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that as the increment has accrued on the next day on which it is earned and therefore, even in a case where an employee has earned the increment one day prior to his retirement but he is not in service the day on which the increment is accrued is concerned, while considering the aforesaid issue, the object and purpose of grant of annual increment is required to be considered. A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (one year) with good conduct efficiently. Merely because, the government servant has retired on the very next day, how can he be denied the annual increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to for rendering the service with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding one year. In the case of Gopal Singh (supra) in paragraphs 20, 23 and 24, the Delhi High Court has observed and held as under: -
"Payment of salary and increment to a central government servant is regulated by the provisions of F.R., CSR and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Pay defined in F.R. 9(21) means the amount drawn monthly by a central government servant and includes the increment. A plain composite reading of applicable provisions leaves no ambiguity that annual increment is given to a government servant to enable him to discharge duties of the post and that pay and allowances are also attached to the post. Article 43 of the CSR defines progressive appointment to mean an appointment wherein the pay is progressive, subject to good behaviour of an officer. It connotes that pay rises, by periodical increments from a minimum to a maximum. The increment in case of progressive appointment is specified in Article 151 of the CSR to mean that increment accrues from the date following that on which it is earned. The scheme, Page 23 of 28 24 OA No.1136/2023 taken cumulatively, clearly suggests that appointment of a central government servant is a progressive appointment and periodical increment in pay from a minimum to maximum is part of the pay structure. Article 151 of CSR contemplates that increment accrues from the day following which it is earned. This increment is not a matter of course but is dependent upon good conduct of the central government servant. It is, therefore, apparent that central government employee earns increment on the basis of his good conduct for specified period i.e. a year in case of annual increment. Increment in pay is thus an integral part of progressive appointment and accrues from the day following which it is earned."
"Annual increment though is attached to the post & becomes payable on a day following which it is earned but the day on which increment accrues or becomes payable is not conclusive or determinative. In the statutory scheme governing progressive appointment increment becomes due for the services rendered over a year by the government servant subject to his good behaviour. The pay of a central government servant rises, by periodical increments, from a minimum to the maximum in the prescribed scale. The entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day."
"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 Page 24 of 28 25 OA No.1136/2023 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."
6.6. 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 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."
6.7. 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 Page 25 of 28 26 OA No.1136/2023 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 hereinabove, 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 therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day. In the present case the word "accrue" should be understood liberally and would mean payable on the succeeding day. Any contrary view would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness and denying a government servant legitimate one annual increment though he is entitled to for rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiently and therefore, such a narrow interpretation should be avoided. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria (supra); the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal (supra); and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra). We do not approve the contrary view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh (supra) and the decisions of the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Pavithran (O.P.(CAT) No. 111/2020 decided on 22.11.2022) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Hari Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020).
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Page 26 of 28 27 OA No.1136/2023
I.A. No. 149091/2022 stands disposed of in terms of the above."
(emphasis supplied)
11. We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the applicability of judgment in the case of The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors (supra)vide their order dated 06th September, 2024 in Miscellaneous Application Diary No.2400/2024 in Special Leave Petition (c)No.4722/2021 and issued the following directions:-
"The issue raised in the present applications requires consideration, insofar as the date of applicability of the judgment dated 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023, titled "Director (Admn.and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and Others", to third parties is concerned 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 Page 27 of 28 28 OA No.1136/2023 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."
12. In view of the above clarification by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to grant notional increment to the applicants w.e.f. 01st July, 2023 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Hence, relief claimed in prayer clause 8(a) is allowed and relief claimed in clause (b) and (c) are rejected.
13. The Original Application is, accordingly, partly allowed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.
(Mr. Shri Krishna) (Justice M.G. Sewlikar)
Member (A) Member (J)
ma.
Page 28 of 28