Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Surendra Ram vs Post Up Circle on 10 July, 2024
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench Allahabad
****
Original Application No.684/2024
This the 10th Day of July, 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
1. Surendra Ram aged about 62 years Son of late Rangnath Ram
R/o Lane no.2 Gautam Nagar Colony Suswahi Near B.H.U. Varanasi.
Retired on 30.06.2022 as S.P.M. Dasasumer post office, East Division
Varanasi.
2. Imtiyaz Ahmad aged about 63 Years son of late Mukhtar
Ahmad R/o House no. B-15/30 Sonarpura Varanasi. Retired on
30.06.2021 as S.P.M. Madanpura East Division Varanasi.
3. Mumtaz Ali Ansari aged about 71 years son of late Mohd. Idris
R/o House no. 140 Kasav Mahal Mughalsarai. Retired on 30.06.2013
from the post of S.P.M. Sadalpura East Division Varanasi,
4. Deo Nath aged about 62 years son of late Raghunath R/o
Village Bandepur(Khusiyari) post Bachchhaon Varanasi. Retired from
service on 30.06.2022 from the post of A.P.M. Varanasi H.O. East
Divion Varanasi.
...........Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Babu Nandan Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Communication
and information (I&T), Sansad Marg Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Post Master General, U.P.Circle, Lucknow.
3. Sr. Post Master Head post office, East Division Varanasi.
4. Sr. Supdt. Post Offices, East Division Varanasi.
........... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan
ORDER
Page No.2 Heard Shri Babu Nandan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This O.A. has been filed on 04.07.2024 by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following main relief(s):-
"(i) To issue a suitable order or direction to call for record and direct the respondents to their pension to be fixed with one notional increment with all consequential benefits with effect 1st July of the year which the applicants retired from Government Service as per the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 15732 of 2017(Shri P. Ayyamperumal Vs U.O.I & ors) and the Apex Court in the case in Special leave petition (civil) Diary no.(s) 22283 of 2018 (Union of India and ors Vs P.Ayyamperunal).
(ii) To issue a suitable time bound order or direction to the respondents to release the entire arrears of pension and other emoluments payable to the applicants as consequence of the aforesaid notional increment from the due date, along with interest @ 9% as might be fought just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. It is submitted by the applicants' counsel that applicant Nos.1 and 4 were retired on 30.06.2022, applicant No.2 was retired on 30.06.2021 and applicant no. 3 was retired on 30.06.2013. One increment for the last year of service has not been granted while they were entitled to one notional increment for the last year of his service. He also placed reliance on the catena of judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court, High Court as well as the Tribunal and submitted that the present case may also be decided by this Tribunal in the light of the aforesaid judgments/orders.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue involved in this Original Applicaiton has already been set at rest by Apex Court. However, he submits that applicant No. 3 has filed this case after the period of three years.
Page No.35. As far as the question of granting the notional increment is concerned, the law has been settled by the Supreme Court in the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., (2023) SCC online S.C. 401 (Civil Appeal No.(s) 2471/2023 decided on 11.04.2023). The Supreme Court considered the divergent views of different 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 Supreme Court discussed the manner 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 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 Supreme Court said:-
"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 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 Page No.4 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)."
6. Therefore, the controversy has been settled by the Supreme Court and it has been held that the increment payable from 01 st July will also be payable to the applicant who was retired on 30 th June because the increment is payable for the service, already rendered by the applicant.
7. The respondents' counsel cited the case of "Union of India and Others v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648" and submitted that if the claim is allowed then, the arrears will not be payable for the period exceeding of three years. The arrears can be paid only for a period of three years before the date of filing of the OA.
8. Whether the arrears for the whole period can be granted or the arrears should be restricted only for the period of three years before filing the present O.A.?
9. In the case of Rushibhai Jagdish bhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, 2022[3] AISLJ 45 [Supreme Court] [18.5.2022] the 'continuing' cause of action and 'recurring' cause of action has been considered in the light of M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Others,[ (1995) 5 SCC 628] and Union of India and Others v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 = 2009[1] SLJ 371 [SC]. The question of arrear in service matters also considered.
10. In Tarsem Singh (supra), the delay of 16 years in approaching the courts affected the consequential claim for arrears and thus, this Court set aside the direction to pay arrears for 16 years with interest. The Court restricted "the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser". Further, the grant of interest on arrears was also denied.
Page No.511. The aforesaid ratio in Tarsem Singh (supra) has been followed in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Yogendra Shrivastava [(2010) 12 SCC 538] and Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India[(2016) 13 SCC 797].
12. Therefore, it can be said that the matter regarding arrears has already been settled by the Supreme Court and the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) also defined in the case of Rushi bhai (supra). Hence, the arrears cannot be granted for the period of more than three years.
14. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid certain position of the law, the OA is partly allowed and ordered:-
(i) Applicants are entitled for one notional increment for their last year of service;
(ii) The respondents are directed to issue the revised PPOs in favour of the applicants within a period of four months and will pay the arrear within the aforesaid period of 4 months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order otherwise the simple interest will also be payable at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this O.A. till the date of actual payment.
(iii) The arrears of applicant No. 3 will be payable only for the period of three years just before the date of filing of this O.A. i.e. 04.07.2024.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Vivek