Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Sami Ullah Khan vs North Central Railway on 13 October, 2025
O.A./928/2025
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
****
Original Application No. 928 of 2025
This the 13th Day of October, 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Sami Ullah Khan aged about 72 years, C/o Idu Khan, R/o-23, Dubaria,
Badousa, District- Banda-210202.
....Applicant.
By Advocate: Shri Bijay Kumar Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India, through General Manager, North Central Railway,
Subedarganj, Prayagraj.
2. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer (P), North Central Railway, Jhansi.
3. Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha
ORDER
Shri Bijay Kumar Srivastava assisted by Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
2. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following main relief(s):-
"8.1. To issue an order or directions commanding the respondents to grant the applicant one notional increment for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and accordingly re-fix his pension and Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI 1 O.A./928/2025 pensionary benefits and pay the arrears alongwith admissible interest thereupon within the specified period.
8.2 To issue any other and further relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
8.3 To award the cost of the original application in favour of the applicant."
3. Although the matter has been listed under the head of 'Fresh Admission' the same is heard and decided today itself with the consent of counsels appearing for both the parties.
4. It is submitted by the applicant's counsel that the applicant has retired on 30.06.2013. One increment falling due on the very next date i.e. 01st July of the relevant year was not granted to him. He also placed reliance on the catena of judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed by Hon'ble High Court as well as various Tribunals and submitted that the present case may also be decided by this Tribunal in the light of the aforesaid judgments/orders. In this regard, the applicant submitted a representation dated 26.06.2024 but to no avail. The applicant has also submitted that he did not get any increment in the last twelve months before his retirement.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents submits that although one Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2025 has been issued by the DoP&T, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India to grant one notional increment to the retired employees who have retired on 30th June / 31st December, yet notional increment can only be allowed to the applicant if he fulfils the requisite eligibility conditions as prescribed in the aforesaid OM as well as the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
6. I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the records.
Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI 2 O.A./928/2025
7. As far as the question of granting the notional increment is concerned, the law on the point has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., reported in (2023) SCC online S.C. 401 (Civil Appeal No.(s) 2471/2023 decided on 11.04.2023). The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the divergent views of different Hon'ble High Courts on the issue:-
"Whether an employee who has earned the annual increment is entitled to the same despite the facts that he has retired on the very next day of earning the increment?"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the matter and importance of increment and observed that denying the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned while rendering a specified period of service with good conduct and efficiency in the last preceding year, would be punishing a person for no fault. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not approve the contrary view taken by the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court and the view of Kerala and Himachal Pradesh High Courts and approved the view of Madras, Allahabad, M.P., Orissa, and Gujrat High Courts. In para 6.7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"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 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 Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI 3 O.A./928/2025 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)."
8. Thereafter, in Special Leave Petition (c) No. 4722/2021 "Union of Indian and Others Vs. M. Siddaraj" a Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400/2024 was filed in which the Hon'ble Apex Court by taking into consideration the date of applicability of the judgment dated 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023 in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. By an interim order dated 06.09.2024 the Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI 4 O.A./928/2025 application of Union of India has been considered and it has been observed as under:-
(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.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Diary No. 2400 of 2024 (Union of India & Anr. vs. M. Siddaraj), on 20.02.2025, has once again considered the matter and made the following observations:-
We are inclined to dispose of the present miscellaneous applications directing that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the order dated 06.09.2024 will be treated as final directions. We are, however, of the opinion that Clause (d) of the order dated 06.09.2024 requires modification which shall now read as under:-
"(d) In case any retired employee filed an application for intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable for the period of three years prior to the month in which the application for intervention/impleadment/ writ petition/ original application was filed."
Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI 5 O.A./928/2025 Further, clause (d) will not apply to the retired government employee who filed a writ petition/original application or an application for intervention before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court after the judgment in "Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj", as in such cases, clause (a) will apply.
10. Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the matter which was filed on and after 01.05.2023 will be applicable for one notional increment as per para (a) of order dated 06.09.2024 of the aforesaid judgment. The benefit of enhanced pension, as per the judgment and order dated 11.04.2023 in C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. (supra), will be extended to third parties from the date of the judgment. Subsequently, taking cognizance of the order dated 06.09.2024 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Department of Personnel and Training vide office memorandum dated 14.10.2024 has considered grant of one notional increment, as stated in para-7, which is quoted herein below:-
"7. The matter has been examined in consultation with D/o Expenditure and D/o Legal Affairs. It is advised that 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."
Subsequently, by order dated 18.12.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Review Petition (C) Diary No. 36418/2024 in Civil Appeal No. (S) 2471/2023 Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. In the present case, the OA was filed on Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI 6 O.A./928/2025 07.07.2025 which is after 01.05.2023, therefore, it comes under the domain of aforesaid decision.
Most recently, the Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India has issued an Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2025 wherein laying down certain conditions, the Union Government has clarified that notional increment is to be allowed on 01st July / 01st January 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. For the sake of clarity, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid OM is quoted herein below:
"6. The matter has been examined in consultation with D/o Expenditure and D/o Legal Affairs. It is advised that in pursuance of the above referred Order dated 20.02.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 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."
11. In view of the above discussions, OA No. 928 of 2025 is allowed and respondents are directed to grant one notional increment falling due on the very next date i.e. 01st July of the relevant year to the applicant subject to fulfilling the criteria as narrated in para 9 and 10 above. The respondents are further directed to issue the revised PPOs (after notional fixation of one increment) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Needless to mention, the aforesaid benefit will Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI 7 O.A./928/2025 be conferred upon the applicant subject to him fulfilling all the requisite eligibility criteria as prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2025 issued by the DoPT as has been discussed above. No order as to costs.
(Mohan Pyare)
Member (A)
/Madhu/
Digitally
MADHU signed by
KUMARI MADHU
KUMARI
8