Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Om Prakash vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 19 October, 2022
1
Item No. 06 O.A. No. 1306/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No.1306/2019
This the 19th day of October, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J)
1. Om Parkash (Group 'B'),
Retired Inspector (Min.),
No. D/3116 (PIS No.27820082)
Aged about 62 years,
S/o Late Sh. Maha Singh,
R/o B-5/87, Sector-7, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.
2. Krishan Lal (Group 'C'),
Retired Sub Inspector (Min.),
No. 2778/D (PIS No.28780279)
Aged about 62 years,
S/o Late Sh. Om Parkash Saini,
R/o Z-685, Type-II, Timar Pur,
Delhi-110054.
3. Yagya Dev Sharma (Group 'B'),
Retired Inspector (Min.),
No. D-2013 (PIS No.27820040)
Aged about 60 years,
S/o Sh. Late Sh. Udai Ram Sharma,
R/o 184, Durga Gali No.3, Mauj Pur,
Delhi-110053.
4. Joginder Singh (Group 'C'),
Retired Sub Inspector (Ex.),
No. D-1632 (PIS No.28770314),
Aged about 60 years,
S/o Late Sh. Jag Ram,
R/o 17D/641, Konark Enclave,
Vashundhara, Ghaziabad, (U.P.),
5. Raj Pal (Group 'C'),
Retired Sub Inspector (Min.),
No.234/D (PIS No.28790234)
Aged about 60 years,
S/o Sh. Doula,
2
Item No. 06 O.A. No. 1306/2019
R/o RZ-236, T. Extension,
Viswash Park,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059.
6. Diwan Singh (Group 'C'),
Retired Sub Inspector (Ex.),
No.3310 (PIS No.29710094),
Aged about 67 years,
S/o Late Sh. Pan Singh,
R/o A22-G, Delhi Police Apartments,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi-110091.
7. Dharam Singh (Group 'C'),
Retired Sub Inspector (Min.),
No. D/1265 (PIS No.28770190)
Aged about 63 years,
S/o Late Sh. S.S. Rawat,
R/o 3-D, R-Block, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095.
8. Rajinder Parshad (Group 'C'),
Retired Sub Inspector (Exe.),
No. 5869-D (PIS No.28780314),
Aged about 60 years,
S/o Late Sh. Kashi Ram,
R/o H. No.229, Main Market
Patpatganj, Chilla Road,
Delhi-110091.
9. Ram Prasad Meena (Group 'C'),
Retired Sub Inspector (Supvr./Tech.),
No. D/4433 (PIS No.2190004),
Aged about 60 years,
S/o Late Sh. Ram Kalyan Meena,
R/o 135/A, 3rd Floor,
Kataria Gas Agency Ki Gali,
Jheel Khuranja, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Nilansh Gaur)
3
Item No. 06 O.A. No. 1306/2019
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Dept. of Personnel & Training (DoP&T),
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Ministry of Home Affairs,
Through its Secretary,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. National Capital Territory of Delhi,
Through Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
4. Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police, PHQ,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. R. K. Sharma and Mr. Surya Nath
Panday)
4
Item No. 06 O.A. No. 1306/2019
ORDER (ORAL)
The reliefs sought by the applicants in the present O.A. are reproduced below verbatim:-
"i. Quash and set aside the Impugned Order at Annexure A-1 while declaring that the case of the applicants is different from the case of Inspector Radhey Shyam referred to MHA and DOPT vide memorandum dated 24.10.2016; and ii. Direct the respondents to extend the benefit of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in P. Ayyam perumal Vs. Registrar, CAT, Madras Bench & Ors. and as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.7.2018 and as a consequence thereof, to grant annual increment falling due on 1.7.2017 to the applicants for one full year of service up to retirement on superannuation on 30.6.2017 and accordingly, fix the pension of the applicants after grant of the annual increment with arrears and all consequential benefits including interest thereupon admissible as per law; and iii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate, in the circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants retired on different dates on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Inspectors and Sub-
inspectors respectively. Their grievance is that they had completed one full year of service on the last day of June, but since the increment falling due on 1st day of July, the same has neither been granted to them nor has the pension been fixed accordingly. Further, it is submitted that the 5 Item No. 06 O.A. No. 1306/2019 Hon'ble Madras High Court vide Judgment passed in W.P. (C) No. 15732/2017 in P. Ayyamperumal vs. The Registrar, CAT, Madras Bench & Ors, while allowing the writ petition held that for one full year of service, the petitioner was entitled to one notional increment falling due on the 1st day of July, even though he was not in service on that day on account of superannuation on the last day of month of June. The said Writ Petition was challenged vide S.L.P. (C) No.22283/2018, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequent upon the same, the applicants preferred a representation for grant of similar benefits, to which the respondents informed that since a similar representation had been sent to MHA/DoP&T vide memorandum dated 24.10.2016, therefore, as soon as the decision of appropriate authority is received, it shall be given wide circulation.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in Society for Teachers' Cause through its General Secretary Sh. Raj Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. (O.A. No. 6 Item No. 06 O.A. No. 1306/2019 776/2019 & batch decided on 15.07.2021), wherein similar issue has been decided in favour of the applicants therein, which reads as under:-
"10. For the foregoing reasons, the OAs are allowed, directing that:
(a) 33 OA No. 776/2019 and batch for such of the employees, who retired on 30th June of any particular year, increment payable on 1st July shall be extended. Their pensions shall also be revised, subject to their fulfilling other conditions which are applicable. The arrears that become due shall be paid without interest;
(b) Similarly for employees, who retired on 31st December of a particular year, the increment payable on the 1st January of the next year shall be extended and pension revised, subject to same conditions in the same manner.
(c) While extending such benefits, a clause shall be incorporated to the effect that in case the Hon'ble Supreme takes a different view in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP No. 4722/2021, they shall be under obligation to refund the entire benefit without any demur.
The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
He, therefore, states that the present O.A. is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter relied upon the learned counsel for the applicants is subject to final outcome of the SLP No.4722/2021 pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Heard both the parties at length and perused the records.
7 Item No. 06 O.A. No. 1306/20195. It is observed that this Tribunal has dealt with a similar issue and decided the same vide order dated 03.12.2019 passed by Ernakulum Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.180/01055/2018 & batch. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:-
"8. In P. Ayyamperumal's case (supra) the Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under:
"4. Heard the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 on the submissions made by the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
5. The petitioner retired as Additional Director General, Chennai on 30.06.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. After the Sixth Pay Commission, the Central Government fixed 1st July as the date of increment for all employees by amending Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. In view of the said amendment, the petitioner was denied the last increment, though he completed a full one year in service, ie., from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013. Hence, the petitioner filed the original application in O.A.No.310/00917/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, and the same was rejected on the ground that an incumbent is only entitled to increment on 1st July if he continued in service on that day.
6. In the case on hand, the petitioner got retired on 30.06.2013. As per the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the increment has to be given only on 01.07.2013, but he had been superannuated on 30.06.2013 itself. The judgment referred to by the petitioner in State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department and others v. M.Balasubramaniam, reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 6525, was passed under similar circumstances on 20.09.2012, wherein this Court confirmed the order passed in W.P.No.8440 of 2011 allowing the writ petition filed by the employee, by observing that the employee had completed one full year of service from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003, which entitled him to the benefit of increment which accrued to him during that period.
7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be 8 Item No. 06 O.A. No. 1306/2019 treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
The Hon'ble apex court vide order dated 23.7.2018 in SLP (Civil) Diary No. (s) 22283/2018 confirmed the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and dismissed the SLP.
9. We find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court had already considered the issue raised by the applicants in the present OAs are we are in full agreement with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal's case (supra) upheld by the Hon'ble apex court.
10. Therefore, the impugned orders of rejection Annexure A4 in OA No. 180/654/2019 and Annexures A5 in OAs Nos. 180/1055/2018 and 180/61/2019 are quashed and set aside. The applicant in OA No. 180/109/2019 had sought relief to quash Annexure A6 which is only a reply to the question posed by a Member of Parliament in Lok Sabha. The applicants shall be given one notional increment for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal's case (supra) upheld by the Hon'ble apex court. The respondents shall implement the order of this Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."
6. Having gone through the decisions/judgments relied upon by the applicants, I am convinced that the present O.A. is squarely covered by the said O.A No. 776/2019 & batch. However, it is also noticed that the aforesaid order 9 Item No. 06 O.A. No. 1306/2019 will be subject to final outcome of the SLP No.4722/2021 pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. In view of the above, the respondents are hereby directed to extend the same benefits to the applicants as has been given in the aforesaid O.A. No.776/2019 & Batch, subject to the final outcome of the SLP No.4722/2021 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. With this observation, the O.A. is disposed of. M.A. No.1443/2019 has been filed for joining together.
For the reasons mentioned therein, the M.A. is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ashish Kalia) Member (J) /yaksh/