Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Sheo Prasad Pandey vs Cgda on 8 August, 2024
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench, Allahabad
****
Original Application No. 855/2024
This the 8th Day of August, 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
1. Sheo Prasad Pandey, aged about 67 years, son of, Late Ram Bachan
Pandey, resident of, 17K/9K/IT, Nai Basti, Beniganj Prayagraj-
211016, U.P. Retired from the post of Senior Accounts Officer, office
of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi
Ghat, Prayagraj - U.P.
2. Nirdosh Kumar Srivastava, aged about 66 years, son of, Late S.B.
Lal Srivastava, resident of, 144, L.I.G. Yojna No. 2. Awas Vikas
Colony, Jhunsi, Prayagraj -U.P. Retired from the post of Senior
Accounts Officer, office of the Principal Controller of Defence
Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Prayagraj -U.P.
3. Shambhu Sharan Tewari, aged about 67 years, son of, Late Surya
Narain Tewari, resident of, 114 Q/1R/5Q. Bhola Ka Pura, Sainik
Colony, Dhoomanganj, Prayagraj- 211011, U.P. Retired from the post
of Senior Auditor, office of the Principal Controller of Defence
Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Prayagraj -U.P.
4. Rajiva Kumar Pathak, aged about 65 years, son of, Late Moti Lal
Pathak, resident of, House No. 229, B-Block, Shyam Nagar, Kanpur-
208013, U.P. Retired from the post of Senior Auditor, under the
Defence Accounts Department while posted at the Accounts Office of
the Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur-U.P.
5. Vidya Bhaskar Trivedi, aged about 67 years, son of, Late Ganga
Charan Trivedi, resident of, 128/1084, Y-Block, Kidwai Nagar,
Kanpur-208011, U.P. Retired from the post of Senior Auditor, under
the Defence Accounts Department while posted at the Accounts
Office of the Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur-U.P.
.........Applicants.
By Adv: Shri Shyamal Narain
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Defence (Finance),
Government of India, New Delhi.
PRIYADARSHANA 2024.08.09 17:45:04+05'30'
Page No.2
2. The Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar Road,
Palam, Delhi Cantt-110010.
3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of
Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India,
New Delhi.
. . . Respondents
By Adv: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan
ORDER
Heard Shri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Although the matter has been listed under the head of „Fresh Admission‟ the same is heard and decided today itself with the consent of learned counsels appearing for both the parties.
3. This Original Application has been filed on 07.08.2024 by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following main relief(s):-
"(i) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the present Original Application and hold and declare that the Applicants are entitled to having their pension fixed by being granted one notional increment, with all consequential benefits, with effect from the 1st of July of the year in which they had retired from government service, AND, thereafter, issue a time-bound order or direction to the respondents to release the entire arrears of the applicants' pension and other emoluments payable to them as a consequence of grant of the aforesaid notional increment from the due date, along with interest at such rates as might be found just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. It is submitted by the applicants‟ counsel that applicant- 1, 3 & 5 were retired on 30.06.2017, applicants- 2 was retired on 30.06.2018, and applicant-4 was retired on 30.06.2019. 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 their 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 PRIYADARSHANA 2024.08.09 17:45:04+05'30' Page No.3 present case may also be decided by this Tribunal in the light of the aforesaid judgments/orders.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue involved in this Original Application has already been set at rest by Apex Court. However, he submits that the applicants have filed this OA after the period of three years.
6. 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 PRIYADARSHANA 2024.08.09 17:45:04+05'30' Page No.4 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. Therefore, the controversy has been settled by the Supreme Court and it has been held that the increment payable from 01st July will also be payable to the applicant who was retired on 30th June because the increment is payable for the service, already rendered by the applicants.
8. 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.
PRIYADARSHANA 2024.08.09 17:45:04+05'30' Page No.5
9. 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.?
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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].
13. 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 Original Application is disposed of and ordered:-
PRIYADARSHANA 2024.08.09 17:45:04+05'30' Page No.6
(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 arrears thereof in favour of the applicants within the aforesaid period of four months from the date of receiving of 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 Original Application till the date of actual payment.
(iii) However, the arrears of the applicants will be payable only for the period of three years just before the date of filing of this Original Application i.e. on 07.08.2024.
15. M.A., if any also stand disposed of accordingly.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) /Priyadarshana/ PRIYADARSHANA 2024.08.09 17:45:04+05'30'