Allahabad High Court
Union Of India And 3 Others vs Shiv Balak And 2 Others on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14527 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 3 Others Respondent :- Shiv Balak And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Agarawal,Sr. Advocate With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18031 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Yadav Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Sr. Advocate,Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19307 of 2021 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 2 Others Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Sharma,Sr. Advocate With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19308 of 2021 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 2 Others Respondent :- Central Administrative, Tribunal Allahabad And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Sharma,Sr. Advocate With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6391 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 4 Others Respondent :- Karam Singh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7418 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 6 Others Respondent :- Gayatri Sharma Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Yadav,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Jaswant Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7628 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 4 Others Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Dwivedi And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Sharma,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Syed Mushfiq Ali With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8580 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 3 Others Respondent :- Shivraj Singh Gangwar And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Purnendu Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Jaswant Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9784 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 2 Others Respondent :- Yogendra Pratap Singh Yadav And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Sharma,Sr. Advocate Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9922 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 2 Others Respondent :- Daya Shanker And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Agarwal,Sr. Advocate With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10131 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 3 Others Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra,Sr. Advocate With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10133 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 3 Others Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra,Sr. Advocate With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10288 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 4 Others Respondent :- Kali Prasad Chaubey And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Purnendu Kumar Singh,A.S.G.I. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10301 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 4 Others Respondent :- Gopal Krishna Mishra And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Purnendu Kumar Singh,A.S.G.I. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10618 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 4 Others Respondent :- Dr. A.K. Singh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Agarwal,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Lal Mani Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11368 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union of India Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupam Kumar With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13197 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 2 Others Respondent :- Nisar Ahmad And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Subhasis Halder,Subhasis Halder With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14826 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 4 Others Respondent :- Central Administrative Bench At Allahabad And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Goswami With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15629 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 4 Others Respondent :- Central Adminstrative Tribunal Allahabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Amitabh Kumar Sinha With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15962 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And Another Respondent :- Deep Chand And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupam Kumar With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18143 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And Another Respondent :- Yasin Khan And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Archit Mehrotra With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18191 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 4 Others Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amitabh Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Saiyed Jafar Ishtiaque With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19630 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 4 Others Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amitabh Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Saiyed Jafar Ishtiaque With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19631 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 5 Others Respondent :- Central Adminstrative Tribunal And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amitabh Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Saiyed Jafar Ishtiaque With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19632 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 5 Others Respondent :- Central Adminstrative Tribunal Allahabad And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amitabh Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Saiyed Jafar Ishtiaque With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19800 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India Of India And 4 Others Respondent :- Brahmdutt Mishra Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudarshan Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20265 of 2022 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 4 Others Respondent :- Ram Adhar Singh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Agarwal,Sr. Advocate Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard Sri Archit Mehrotra, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents in respective writ petitions.
2. The short question involved in this bunch of writ petitions is as under :
"Whether employees who retired on 30th June are entitled to the last annual increment made effective from on 1st July?"
3. This bunch of writ petitions were heard on several occasions and an interim order dated 03.11.2022 was passed in ignorance of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal N.7970 of 2022 (Union of India and others Vs. 671534-K Ex HFL Sarvesh Kumar) dated 31.10.2022. Therefore, this Court passed an order dated 11.11.2022 in connected Writ A No. 18143 of 2022 as under :
"1. Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Archit Mehrotra and Sri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Saiyed Jafar Ishtiaque, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 in the connected Writ -A No.18191 of 2022.
2. Short question involved in both the writ petitions is as under:-
"Whether employees who retired on 30th June are entitled to the last annual increment made effective from on 1st July?"
3. A bunch of writ petitions being leading Writ A No.14527 of 2022 were heard by this Court on 12.10.2022 and were reserved for orders. The orders were delivered on 03.11.2022, granting interim relief to the petitioner-Union of India, on the strength of interim order dated 01.08.2022 granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12190 of 2022. The interim order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal is reproduced below:-
"Issue Notice.
In the meanwhile, there will be stay of operation of the order impugned judgment and order.
The petitioners shall, however, pay retiral dues of the respondent computed on the basis of the last pay drawn by him on the date of his retirement without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
Tag with SLP (C) No. 4722 of 2021."
4. Thus in a batch of writ petitions being leading Writ A No.14527 of 2022, this Court passed interim orders on 03.11.2022, in terms of the aforesaid interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. However, when the present writ petitions have been taken up, as fresh case, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 in the connected Writ -A No.18191 of 2022 pointed out as under:-
(i) A division Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.15732 of 2017, (P. Ayyamperumal versus The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and 3 others), passed a final judgment observing / holding as under:-
"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 other 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."
(ii) Against the aforesaid judgment of Madras High Court, the Union of India has filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.22283 of 2018, (Union of India and others versus P. Ayyamperumal), which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 23.07.2018, as under:-
"On the facts, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
The special leave petition is dismissed."
(iii) Against the aforesaid order dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Union of India filed a Review Petition (C) No.1731 of 2019, (Union of India and others versus P. Ayyamperumal), which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 08.08.2019, as under:-
"Delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned.
This review petition has been filed against the order dated 23rd July, 2018 whereby the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
We have considered the review petition on merits. In our opinion, no case for review of order dated 23rd July, 2018 is made out. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed on merits.
Pending application filed in the matter also stands disposed of."
(iv) Writ Petition No.6396 of 2020, (Prakash Tulshiram Chaudhari versus The State of Maharashtra and others), involving similar controversy was allowed by Bombay High Court by judgment dated 24.06.2021 in which the above noted judgment of Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra) was followed and it was held that the petitioner who was superannuated on 30.06.2019 would be entitled to the last annual increment, which he has been deprived of and the respondents shall, accordingly, calculate the said monetary benefits expeditiously and also recalculate his pension, gratuity, earned leave, commutation benefits, etc., and make the payment of arrears.
(v) Against the aforesaid judgment of Bombay High Court, the Union of India filed a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.206 of 2022 which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 12.01.2022, as under :-
"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application also stands disposed of. "
(vi) Writ Petition (C) No.10509 of 2019, (Gopal Singh versus Union of India and others), involving identical question, was disposed of by Delhi High Court by judgment dated 23.01.2020, as under :-
"7. Having perused the judgment of the Madras High Court, the Court is of the view that the facts in the case at hand are identical to the facts in the petition before the Madras High Court, with the sole point of divergence being the fact that the Petitioner herein was serving in the CISF and the Petitioner before the Madras High Court was with the Customs and Excise Department. Further, it is seen that the SLP against the judgment of the Madras High Court has also been dismissed on merits.
8. More recently, this Court in its decision dated 13th January, 2020 in W.P.(C) 5539/2019 (Arun Chhibber v. Union of India) has discussed the judgment in P. Ayyamperumal at some length in the context of the prayer of an officer of the Central Reserve Police Force (''CRPF') who had retired on 30th June, 2007 for notional increment. The Court rejected the contention of the Respondents therein that the judgment in P. Ayyamperuam had to be treated as one that was in personam and not in rem. In relation to the Respondent's attempt to distinguish the applicability of the judgment in P. Ayyamperumal to CRPF personnel, the Court observed as under:-
"5. The Court finds that the only difference, if any, between P. Ayyamperumal (supra) and this case is that the former was an employee of the Central Government, whereas here the Petitioner superannuated from the CRPF. The Court, therefore, finds no reasons to deny the Petitioner same relief granted to Mr. P. Ayyamperumal by the Madras High Court. The similarity in the two cases is that here too, the Petitioner has completed one year of service, just one day prior to 1st July, 2007."
9. The position here as regards CISF personnel can be no different and it was not, therefore, open to the Respondents to refuse to grant to the Petitioner notional increment merely because he superannuated a day earlier than the day fixed by the CPC for such benefit to accrue.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 3rd May, 2019 is set aside. A direction is issued to the Respondents to grant notional increment to the Petitioner with effect from 1st July, 2019. The Petitioner's pension will consequentially be re-fixed. The appropriate orders will be issued and arrears of pension will be paid to the Petitioner within a period of 6 weeks, failing which the Respondents would be liable to simple interest at 6% per annum on the arrears of period of delay.
11. The petition is disposed of. "
(vii) Against the aforesaid judgment of Delhi High Court, the Union of India filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.13959 of 2020 which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 13.10.2020, as under:-
"The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the record.
Delay condoned.
We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
(viii) Against the aforesaid judgment of Delhi High Court, the Union of India filed a Review Petition (Civil) D. No.6844 of 2021 which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 26.07.2022, as under :-
"Delay condoned.
The instant petition for review has been filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of aforementioned Special Leave Petition vide this Court's order dated 13.10.2020.
Having carefully perused the petition for review and the papers connected therewith, we do not find any reason for reconsideration of the order impugned.
The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
(ix) Original Application No.366 of 2020, (671534-K Ex HFL Sarvesh Kumar versus Union of India and others), involving similar question, was allowed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow by order dated 12.08.2021 holding as under:-
"8. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court we are of the view that since the applicant had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2014, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2014, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment, 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.
9. In view of the above, the Original Application No.366 of 2020 deserves to be allowed, hence allowed. The impugned order dated 04.01.2019, annexed as Annexure No. A-1 with Original Application, is set aside. The applicant shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2013 to 30.06.2014, as he has completed one full years of service, thought his increment fell on 01.07.2014, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. The respondents are directed to issue fresh Corrigendum P.P.O. accordingly. The respondents are further directed to give effect to this order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Default will invite interest @ 8% per annum till the actual payment."
(x) Against the aforesaid order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow the Union of India has filed Civil Appeal No.7970 of 2022, (Union of India and others versus 671534-K Ex HFL Sarvesh Kumar) which has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment and order dated 31.10.2022, as under :-
"Application for leave to Appeal is allowed.
Delay condoned.
We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant and perused the record.
We do not see any cogent reason to entertain the Appeal. The judgment impugned does not warrant any interference.
The Appeal is dismissed."
Thus the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the civil appeal of the Union of India.
6. In view of the facts and legal position noted above, prima-facie it appears to us that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions and all other similar writ petitions pending in this Court including leading Writ A No.14527 of 2022 and other writ petitions connected therewith, are covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the question which is involved in the present writ petitions and all other similar writ petitions pending in this Court, prima-facie appears to be squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court which affirmed the judgment of Madras High Court, Bombay High Court, Delhi High Court and Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow.
7. In view of the afore said, we direct the Union of India to file a supplementary affidavit taking a clear stand with respect to the merits of the writ petitions in view of the judgments afore noted.
8. The Union of India is not an ordinary litigant. There is a national litigation policy also. The Union of India cannot be selective with respect to the question involved in these writ petitions. It has to take a uniform stand with respect to all similarly situated persons. Therefore, we direct that supplementary affidavit on behalf of the Union of India shall be filed by a responsible officer positively within three weeks.
9. Hearing of all similar writ petitions pending in this Court is preponed. List/put up in the additional cause list for further hearing on 05.12.2022 at 10:00 A.M. along-with all similar writ petitions including leading Writ A No.14527 of 2022 and all writ petitions connected therewith."
4. Despite directions given in paragraph 7 and 8 of our aforequoted order dated 11.11.2022, the Union of India has not filed a supplementary affidavit.
5. On the request of learned Central Government Standing Counsel, this Court adjourned the matter by order dated 05.12.2022, passed in leading Writ A No.14527 of 2022 as under :
"Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
For reasons recorded in the order dated 11.11.2022 in Writ A No.18143 of 2022, hearing in this Bunch of writ petitions was preponed and today's date was fixed. We had granted interim order dated 03.11.2022 on impression given to us that an interim order has been passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 01.08.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12190 of 2022 whereas similar controversy as involved in the present writ petitions were finally decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 31.10.2022 in Civil Appeal No.7970 of 2022.
Today Sri Archit Mehrotra, learned Central Government Standing Counsel states that learned ASGI is not available today and therefore matter may be taken up on 15.12.2022 by which date the supplementary affidavit as directed by this Court by order dated 11.11.2022 in the connected Writ A No.18143 of 2022, shall be filed.
As prayed by learned Counsel for the petitioners, list/put up on 15.12.2022 at 10:00 AM for further hearing, along-with all connected and similar writ petitions."
6. Despite the directions given in aforequoted orders dated 11.11.2022 and 05.12.2022 the Union of India has chosen not to file supplementary affidavit. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel again prays for time. The prayer is rejected.
7. We find that similar question as involved in the present writ petitions and noted in paragraph 2 above has been subject matter of consideration before certain High Courts, Tribunals and Hon'ble Supreme Court which we proceed to notice below.
8. A division Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.15732 of 2017, (P. Ayyamperumal versus The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and 3 others), passed a final judgment observing / holding as under:-
"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 other 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."
9. Against the aforesaid judgment of Madras High Court, the Union of India has filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.22283 of 2018, (Union of India and others versus P. Ayyamperumal), which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 23.07.2018, as under:-
"On the facts, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
The special leave petition is dismissed."
10. Against the aforesaid order dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Union of India filed a Review Petition (C) No.1731 of 2019, (Union of India and others versus P. Ayyamperumal), which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 08.08.2019, as under:-
"Delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned.
This review petition has been filed against the order dated 23rd July, 2018 whereby the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
We have considered the review petition on merits. In our opinion, no case for review of order dated 23rd July, 2018 is made out. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed on merits.
Pending application filed in the matter also stands disposed of."
11. Writ Petition No.6396 of 2020, (Prakash Tulshiram Chaudhari versus The State of Maharashtra and others), involving similar controversy was allowed by Bombay High Court by judgment dated 24.06.2021 in which the above noted judgment of Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra) was followed and it was held that the petitioner who was superannuated on 30.06.2019 would be entitled to the last annual increment, which he has been deprived of and the respondents shall, accordingly, calculate the said monetary benefits expeditiously and also recalculate his pension, gratuity, earned leave, commutation benefits, etc., and make the payment of arrears.
12. Against the aforesaid judgment of Bombay High Court, the Union of India filed a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.206 of 2022 which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 12.01.2022, as under :-
"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application also stands disposed of. "
13. Writ Petition (C) No.10509 of 2019, (Gopal Singh versus Union of India and others), involving identical question, was disposed of by Delhi High Court by judgment dated 23.01.2020, as under :-
"7. Having perused the judgment of the Madras High Court, the Court is of the view that the facts in the case at hand are identical to the facts in the petition before the Madras High Court, with the sole point of divergence being the fact that the Petitioner herein was serving in the CISF and the Petitioner before the Madras High Court was with the Customs and Excise Department. Further, it is seen that the SLP against the judgment of the Madras High Court has also been dismissed on merits.
8. More recently, this Court in its decision dated 13th January, 2020 in W.P.(C) 5539/2019 (Arun Chhibber v. Union of India) has discussed the judgment in P. Ayyamperumal at some length in the context of the prayer of an officer of the Central Reserve Police Force (''CRPF') who had retired on 30th June, 2007 for notional increment. The Court rejected the contention of the Respondents therein that the judgment in P. Ayyamperuam had to be treated as one that was in personam and not in rem. In relation to the Respondent's attempt to distinguish the applicability of the judgment in P. Ayyamperumal to CRPF personnel, the Court observed as under:-
"5. The Court finds that the only difference, if any, between P. Ayyamperumal (supra) and this case is that the former was an employee of the Central Government, whereas here the Petitioner superannuated from the CRPF. The Court, therefore, finds no reasons to deny the Petitioner same relief granted to Mr. P. Ayyamperumal by the Madras High Court. The similarity in the two cases is that here too, the Petitioner has completed one year of service, just one day prior to 1st July, 2007."
9. The position here as regards CISF personnel can be no different and it was not, therefore, open to the Respondents to refuse to grant to the Petitioner notional increment merely because he superannuated a day earlier than the day fixed by the CPC for such benefit to accrue.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 3rd May, 2019 is set aside. A direction is issued to the Respondents to grant notional increment to the Petitioner with effect from 1st July, 2019. The Petitioner's pension will consequentially be re-fixed. The appropriate orders will be issued and arrears of pension will be paid to the Petitioner within a period of 6 weeks, failing which the Respondents would be liable to simple interest at 6% per annum on the arrears of period of delay.
11. The petition is disposed of. "
14. Against the aforesaid judgment of Delhi High Court, the Union of India filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.13959 of 2020 which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 13.10.2020, as under:-
"The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the record.
Delay condoned.
We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
15. Against the aforesaid judgment of Delhi High Court, the Union of India filed a Review Petition (Civil) D. No.6844 of 2021 which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 26.07.2022, as under :-
"Delay condoned.
The instant petition for review has been filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of aforementioned Special Leave Petition vide this Court's order dated 13.10.2020.
Having carefully perused the petition for review and the papers connected therewith, we do not find any reason for reconsideration of the order impugned.
The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
16. Original Application No.366 of 2020, (671534-K Ex HFL Sarvesh Kumar versus Union of India and others), involving similar question, was allowed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow by order dated 12.08.2021 holding as under:-
"8. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court we are of the view that since the applicant had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2014, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2014, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment, 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.
9. In view of the above, the Original Application No.366 of 2020 deserves to be allowed, hence allowed. The impugned order dated 04.01.2019, annexed as Annexure No. A-1 with Original Application, is set aside. The applicant shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2013 to 30.06.2014, as he has completed one full years of service, thought his increment fell on 01.07.2014, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. The respondents are directed to issue fresh Corrigendum P.P.O. accordingly. The respondents are further directed to give effect to this order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Default will invite interest @ 8% per annum till the actual payment."
17. Against the aforesaid order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow the Union of India has filed Civil Appeal No.7970 of 2022, (Union of India and others versus 671534-K Ex HFL Sarvesh Kumar) which has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment and order dated 31.10.2022, as under :-
"Application for leave to Appeal is allowed.
Delay condoned.
We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant and perused the record.
We do not see any cogent reason to entertain the Appeal. The judgment impugned does not warrant any interference.
The Appeal is dismissed."
Thus the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the civil appeal of the Union of India.
18. In view of the facts and legal position noted above, since the controversy/question involved in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgments/orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court affirming the judgment of Madras High Court, Bombay High Court, Delhi High Court and the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, therefore, all the Writ Petitions deserve to be dismissed and the impugned orders of the Tribunal deserve to be affirmed.
20. For all the reasons aforestated all the writ petitions are dismissed and it is held that the employees who retired on 30th June are entitled to the last increment made effective on 1st July.
Order Date :- 15.12.2022/vkg