Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Pardeep Kumar Aggarwal vs Department Of Posts on 20 August, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 899/2024
Chandigarh, this the 20th day of August, 2024
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
1. Pardeep Kumar Aggarwal s/o Late. Sh. Ishwar Chand Aggarwal,
Aged 68 Years, Retired as Section Supervisor from, Department of
Posts, Circle Office Ambala Cantt Haryana, under Chief Postmaster
Master General, Haryana Circle, Ambala, R/o 1139/40 Prabhu Prem
Puram Ambala Cantt, Haryana, PIN-133001.
2. Jagdish Chander Sehgal s/o Sh. Partap Chander Sehgal, Aged 78
Years, Retired as Asst. Postmaster General, Department of Posts,
Circle Office Ambala Cantt Haryana, under Chief Postmaster Master
General, Haryana Circle, Ambala, R/O House No. 1704, Sector-13
Karnal, Haryana.
...Applicants
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Gaurav Gupta)
VERSUS
1. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology, Department of Posts, New Delhi. secretary-
[email protected]
2. Chief Post Master General, Haryana Circle, CPMG OFFICE COMPOUND,
107, Mall Road, Ambala Cantt, Haryana cpmg [email protected]
133001.
3. Director of Accounts (Postal), Haryana Circle, Ministry of
Communication, Department of Posts, 107, Mall Road, Ambala Cantt.
Haryana.
4. Superintendent Postal Stores Depot (PSD), Ambala, Haryana, PIN-
133001
5. Superintendent Railway Mail Service (RMS) "Haryana (HR) Division"
Ambala-133001
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC, on advance notice)
2
O R D E R(Oral)
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J):
1. The applicants have preferred instant O.A under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following relief:
(I) "Quash orders dated 21.05.2024 and 24.02.2022, (Annexure A-1 Colly) issued to the applicant No.1 and
2 respectively, while replying to their representations, denied the Grant of notional increment and release of arrears of enhanced pension and pensionary benefits on the enhanced pay after having retired on 30th June, stating that as and when rulings/guidelines will be received from the Department/Ministry the same will be settled accordingly, is illegal and arbitrary despite the fact that the claim of applicants is based upon the dicta of law settled by Hon'ble Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal vs The Registrar on 15.09.2017 (Annexure A-5) as upheld in SLP (C) No(s).22283/2018 vide order dated 23.07.2019 (Annexure A-6) and in which the Review Petition bearing no. R.P.(C) No. 1731/2019 was dismissed vide order dated 8th August, 2019 (Annexure A-7), judgment by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023 in SLP No. 6185/2020 titled as The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTC & Others vs C.P. Mundinamani& others, decided on 11.04.2023 and judgment dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure A-8) passed by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in 'Rajendra Prasad Tewari v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The same is contrary to the settled law, not in consonance with 3 the recommendation of the 7th Pay Commission read with Circular dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure A3-) and OM dated 28.11.2019 (Annexure A-4).
(II) Direct the respondents to release the benefit of annual increment to all applicants having completed 365 days service as on date of their retirement by taking the date of annual increment as 1" of July of the year in consonance with the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission read with OM dated 31.07.2018 and 28.11.2019 with all consequential benefits including the retirement payments (Including arrears of Enhanced pension, and Gratuity, Leave Encashment and Commuted Value of Pension on the enhanced Pay etc.) along with interest thereupon @12% from date the amount became due till its actual release."
2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded are that the applicant No. 1 retired from service as Section Supervisor on 30.06.2016 and applicant No. 2 as Asst. Postmaster General on 30.06.2006 from the office of respondent No.3. The applicants No. 1 and 2 got their annual increment on 1st July 2015 and 1st July, 2005 respectively and worked for one full year till retirement. Hence, they pleaded that they are entitled for one increment after retirement since they have completed one year of service from the date of last increment.
3. 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 4 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 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 5 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."
4. Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC, on advance notice, appears on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the applicants were not in service on 01.07.2016 and 01.07.2006, therefore they are not entitled for the increment.
6
5. The issue of benefit of increment on the last date of retirement is no 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'ble Apex Court in the matter of KPTCL (supra), nothing survives to adjudicate herein. This Tribunal has also allowed various applications vide order dated 02.02.2024 on the similar issue in O.A No. 60/359/2019 and Ors. directing "the respondents to grant the benefit of one notional increment to the applicants due on 1st July or 1st January of the next years, as the case may be, with all consequential benefits." The similar relief as claimed by the applicant herein has been granted by the various authorities after the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in KPTCL (supra).
6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as respondents and perused the material available on record and gone through the judgment of KPTCL (supra). At this stage, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the instant O.A at the admission stage with direction to the respondents to consider the claim of applicants seeking grant of increment, in view of the aforesaid ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court and if the case of applicants is covered on all fours by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of The Director (Admin and HR) KPTCL & Ors Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors (supra)., the benefit of the increment shall be granted to the applicants with all consequential benefits with effect from 01.07.2016 and 01.07.2006 respectively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
7. The contention of respondent in respect of claim of notional increment to the applicants is rejected in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2002 (2) SCT page 354, wherein the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High 7 Court has held that when a judgment attains finality, the State is bound to grant relief to its employees, who are similarly situated even though they are not party to the litigation. A final decision of the Court must not only be respected but should also be enforced and implemented evenly and without discrimination in respect of all the employees, who are entitled to the benefit, which has been allowed to the employees, who have obtained orders from the Court. The matter is one of principle and should not depend upon who comes to the court and who does not. I am of the considered view that after the final adjudication of issue by the Hon'ble Apex Court, any compulsion to the similarly situated persons being senior citizens/retired employees to contest litigation, for the same issue is unwarranted and harassment.
8. I draw support from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex court in case titled as State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha reported as (2006) 2 SCC 747, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time-to-time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently."
9. I am again fortified by the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others reported as (2015) 1 SCC 347 wherein it has observed as follows:
"22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly." 8
10. In terms of aforesaid, the O.A is disposed of at the admission stage itself. There shall be no order so as to cost.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) Member (J) ms* Dated: 20.08.2024