Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Dinesh Kumar Kakkar vs Garrison Engineer on 10 February, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 1101/2024
Chandigarh, this the 10th day of February, 2025
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
1. Dinesh Kumar Kakkar Aged 64 years son of Sh. Mathura Dass
Kakkar R/o H.No. 247A, Gali No.8 Baba Budha Ji Enclave Dakoha
Jalandhar
2. Hans Raj Aged 76 Years S/o Sh. Dayal Chand, R/o H.No. 02,
Kasturba Nagar, MH Road, Jalandhar. (Group C).
...Applicants
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Defence, South Block
New Delhi-110011 (Email: [email protected])
2. The Engineer in Chief. Army HQ, Kashmir House, New Delhi-
110001 (Email: [email protected])
3. The Chief Engineer, Western Command, Chandimandir Distt.
Panchkula (Haryana)-134107 (Email: [email protected])
4. Commander Works Engineer, Jalandhar Cantt. (Punjab)-144004
(Email: [email protected])
5. Garrison Engineer (West) Jalandhar Cantt. (Punjab)-144004
(Email: [email protected])
6. Principal Controller of Defense Accounts (Pension) Dropti Ghat
Allahabad (UP)-211001 ([email protected])
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC)
O R D E R(Oral)
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J):
1. The brief facts of the case as pleaded are that the applicant No. 1 has retired as Assistant Administrative Officer and the applicant No.2 retired as MCM (Refg. Mech) from the office of respondent No. 5 on superannuation from service on 30.06.2020 and 30.06.2009 2 respectively. The dates of retirement of the applicants are 30.06.2020 and 30.06.2009, therefore, they are entitled to be granted notional increment as on 1st July of their retirement years as he has rendered 365 days of service as on 30th June.
2. The applicants have relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 2471 of 2023 arising out of SLP (C) 6185/2020 Title The Director (Admin and HR) KPTCL & Ors Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors decided on 11.04.2023, wherein Supreme Court, while dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 preferred by the respondents has held that:
"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 interpret 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 3 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."
3. The respondents have filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant and stated that the present O.A be disposed of in terms of the DoPT O.M dated 14.10.2024.
4. The issue of benefit of increment on the last date of retirement is no 4 longer res integra after the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in KPTCL (supra). Since the issue raised in the instant O.A, has been finally adjudicated by the Hon'bl e Ape x Cour t i n th e matte r o f KPTC L (supra) , nothin g survive s to adjudicate herein.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as respondents and perused the material available on record and gone through the KPTCL judgment (supra). Undisputedly, similar benefit has been granted by the authorities of various departments under UOI in term of ratio of KPTCL (supra). Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application (Diary No. 2400/2024) preferred by Union of India in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4722/2021 (Union of India & Anr. vs. M. Siddaraj), vide interim order dated 06.09.2024 clarified the date of applicability of the judgment dated 11.04.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023 titled "The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., as follows: -
"(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
6. From the perusal of interim order dated 06.09.2024, it is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter and the matter is fixed for further consideration before Hon'ble Apex Court.
7. However, the DoPT on the basis of Hon'ble Apex Court's interim order dated 06.09.2024 issued O.M dated 14.10.2024, wherein, it has been observed as under:
"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. 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 discussion hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the instant O.A with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the claim of applicants in terms of the observations in interim order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, viz-a-viz DoPT's O.M dated 14.10.2024. Though it will be subject to the final outcome of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
9. Accordingly, the O.A is disposed of . There shall be no order so as to cost.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) Member (J) *ms