Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
P Janaki vs The Secretary And Director General ... on 25 February, 2020
1 O.A No. 180/335/19
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No. 180/00335/2019
Tuesday, this the 25th day of February, 2020.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. ASHISH KALIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. P. Janaki,
Retired Postal Assistant, Kulakkada P.O.,
Residing at Soja Bhavan, Mavadi (P.O.),
Puthoor - 691 507.
2. K. Muhammedkunju
Retired Postman, Alumkadavu P.O,
Residing at Kottakkakathu Thekkethil,
Varavila (P.O), Vavvakkavu - 690 528.
3. G. Chandramathy Amma,
Retired Postman, Thevally (P.O),
Residing at Kattoorazhikath Veedu,
Poovattoor West, Mavady (P.O), Puthoor - 691 507.
4. V. Gopalakrishnan,
Retired Postman, Karunagappally H.O.,
Residing at Elayamadom, Mynagappally (P.O),
PIN - 690 519.
5. R. Gopinathan Nair,
Retired Postman, Kollam H.O.,
Residing at Kannamangalathu Veedu,
Kokkadu (P.O), Vettikkavala - 691 538.
6. R. Jyothikumar,
Retired Postman, Chavara (P.O),
Residing at Prasanna Bhavanam,
Pada-North, Karunagappally - 690 518.
7. T.P. Soman,
Retired Postman, Kozhancherry (P.O),
Residing at Thakadiyil Veedu, Madamon (P.O),
Ranny-Perinad, Pathanamthitta - 689 711.
8. K.N. Raman,
Retired Postman, Omalloor (P.O),
Residing at Ullanmelil, Padinjattahil,
Vazhamuttom (P.O), Omalloor,
Pathanamthitta - 689 647. - Applicants
[By Advocate : Mr. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil ]
2 O.A No. 180/335/19
Versus
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary &
Director General, Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kollam Postal Division, Kollam - 691 001.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Pathanamthitta Postal Division,
Pathanamthitta - 689 645. - Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr. N. Anilkumar, SCGSC]
The application having been heard on 25.02.2020, the Tribunal on
the same day delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Ashish Kalia, Judicial Member Relief sought by the applicant is as follows:-
"(i) Direct the respondents to extend the benefit of Annexure A1 judgment to the applicants.
(ii) Direct the respondents to consider granting one increment for having completed one full year of service as on 30 th June, which fell due on 1st July of the respective year in which the applicants retired from service and grant all consequential benefits including revision of pensionary benefits and its arrears.
(iii) Direct the respondents to take into account one increment which fell due on the date of superannuation (as on 1 st July of the respective years), for having completed one full years of service, for fixing pensionary benefits and to revise the pension as well as other retirement benefits accordingly"
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the first applicant superannuated on 30.06.2011 and the 2nd applicant retired from service on 30.06.2007 and other applicants accordingly after the implementation of the 6th CPC and before complying into force of the 7 th CPC. On account of the changes in date of grant of increment with effect from 1 st 3 O.A No. 180/335/19 July after 6th CPC, the applicants who superannuated on 30 th June of the respective years lost out on one increment despite having completed one full year of service.
3. Notices were issued and respondents appeared through Mr. N. Anilkumar, SCGSC and filed reply statement stating that the applicants are challenging the policy of Government of India i.e. Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules 2008. If the prayer of the applicants were allowed, the same would have all India ramifications.
4. Heard Mr. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthil, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N. Anilkumar, SCGSC for the respondents at length.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to O.A No. 1055/2018 and connected cases, where this Tribunal has decided in favour of the applicants counting the service for grant of one increment in terms of the Madras High Court decision.
6. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court dated 15.9.2017 in WP(C) No. 15732 of 2017 - P. Ayyamperumal v. The Registrar & Ors. it was 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 4 O.A No. 180/335/19 (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 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.
7. This Tribunal find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court had already considered the issue raised by the applicants in the present O.A and this Tribunal is 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.
8. Therefore, 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 5 O.A No. 180/335/19 of this Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. O.A is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dated, 25th February, 2020.) (ASHISH KALIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ax 6 O.A No. 180/335/19 Applicant's Annexures Annexure A-1 - True copy of the judgment dated 15.09.2017 in W.P. (c) No. 15732/2017 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras Bench.
Annexure A-2 - True copy of the order dated 23.07.2018 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 22283 of 2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Annexure A-3 - True copy of the representation dated 18.03.2019 sent by the 1st applicant to the 3rd respondent. Annexure A-4 - True copy of the representation dated 12.03.2019 sent by the 2nd applicant to the 3rd respondent. Annexure A-5 - True copy of representation dated 14.03.2019 sent by the 3rd applicant to the 3rd respondent. Annexure A-6 - True copy of representation dated 16.03.2019 sent by the 4th applicant to the 3rd respondent. Annexure A-7 - True copy of the representation dated 14.03.2019 submitted by the 5th applicant to 3rd respondent. Annexure A-8 - True copy of the representation dated 15.03.2019 submitted by the 6th applicant to 3rd respondent. Annexure A-9 - True copy of the representation dated 19.03.2019 submitted by the 7th applicant to 4th respondent. Annexure A-10 - True copy of the representation dated 20.03.2019 submitted by the 8th applicant to 4th respondent. Annexure A-11 - True copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 22283 of 2018.
Annexures of Respondents NIL ********* 7 O.A No. 180/335/19 8 O.A No. 180/335/19