Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
N S Vijayakumar vs Department Of Pension And Personers ... on 1 November, 2022
1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM Original Application No. 180/00687/2019 Original Application No. 180/00033/2020 Original Application No. 180/00034/2020 Original Application No. 180/00047/2020 Original Application No. 180/00138/2020 Original Application No. 180/00151/2020 Original Application No. 180/00231/2020 Original Application No. 180/00412/2020 Original Application No. 180/00432/2020 Original Application No. 180/00515/2020 Original Application No. 180/00522/2020 Original Application No. 180/00524/2020 Original Application No. 180/00531/2020 Original Application No. 180/00300/2021 Original Application No. 180/00673/2021 Original Application No. 180/00100/2022 Tuesday, this the 1st day of November, 2022 CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. K.V. Eapen, Member (A)
1. Original Application No. 180/00687/2019 -
K.K. Joshwa, IPS, aged 67 years, S/o. Kunjummen, Superintendent of Police (Retired), residing at Kaleekal, SNRA 81, Soorya Nagar, Powdikonam PO, Trivandrum, (Ph:9846180801). ..... Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. R. Sreeraj) Versus
1. State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001.
2. The Accountant General (A&E), Kerala, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram - 695001.
3. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi - 110001. ..... Respondents 2 [By Advocates : Mr. Baijuraj, GP (R1&2) and Mr. Anil Ravi, ACGSC (R3)]
2. Original Application No. 180/00033/2020 - M. Natarajan, S/o. Late Muthukrishna Iyer, aged 72 years, Senior Accountant (Retd.), Civil Accounts Department, Krishnakripa, Indira Road, IRA-78, Edapally PO, Cochin - 682024, Kerala State (Mob.9495714156). ..... Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. C.S.G. Nair) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Principal Chief Controller of Accounts, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, AGCR Building (1st Floor), New Delhi - 110002.
3. Deputy Controller of Accounts, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, 26/1, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nughambakkam, Chennai - 600034.
4. Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Excise and Customs, Central Revenue Building, I.S. Press Road, Cochin - 682018.
5. Chief Controller, Central Pension Accounting Office, Trikoot II Complex, Bhikajicama Place, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110066. ..... Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. Anil Ravi, ACGSC)
3. Original Application No. 180/00034/2020 - Xavier C.I., S/o. Late Inasu, aged 66 years, Crime Assistant, Central Bureau of Investigation (Retd.), Chalissery Valappila House, Karamuck, Kadassankadavu PO, Thrissur Dist. - 680613, Kerala State, Mob. - 9048551486. ..... Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. C.S.G. Nair) 3 Versus
1. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Plot No. 5-B, 6th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Marg, New Delhi, Delhi - 110 003.
3. Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Crime Branch, Muttathara, Vallakadavu PO, Thiruvananthapuram - 695008.
4. Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, 1st Floor, CBI Building, Plot No. 5-B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
5. Chief Controller, Central Pension Accounting Office, Trikoot II Complex, Bhikajicama Place, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110066. ..... Respondents (By Advocate : Mrs. O.M. Shalina, SCGSC)
4. Original Application No. 180/00047/2020 - V.K. Sukumaran, S/o. Late Kesavan, aged 73 years, Assistant Engineer (E&M) Retd., Military Engineering Service, Vetroth House, Pamkulam Road, Irigole PO, Perumbavoor, Ernakulam Dist. - 683548, Kerala State (Mob. 9446326173). ..... Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. C.S.G. Nair) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Engineering-in-Chief, Military Engineering Sevice, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi, Delhi-110011.
3. Director, Central Record Office (Officers), Tigris Road, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi - 110 010. 4
4. Garrison Engineer (NS), Military Engineering Service, Kattaribagh, Cochin - 682004.
5. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Draupadi Ghat, Alahabad - 211014. ..... Respondents (By Advocate : Mrs. Mini R. Menon, ACGSC)
5. Original Application No. 180/00138/2020 -
1. K.N. Soman, S/o. K. Nanu, aged 66 years, Retd. Postman (TBOP), Department of Posts, New Delhi South West Dn. 110 021, residing at Jyothish Bhavanam, Pallickal, Panayil Nooranad, Alappuzha - 690 504., Mob. 9995165766.
2. Remadevi Amma R., W/o. S. Muraleedharan Pillai, aged 67 years, Retd. Postman (HSG-I), Department of Posts, Kayangulam HO, Alappuzha - 690 101, residing at Kalpakasseril Puthia vila, Pattolimarket PO, Alappuzha - 690 531, Mob. 8281255661. ..... Applicants (By Advocate : Mr. V. Sajith Kumar) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Posts, Government of India, New Delhi- 11001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Delhi Circle, O/o. The Chief PMG, Delhi Circle, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram -
695 033.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, New Delhi South West Division, Chankyapuri, New Delhi - 110 021.
5. The Superintendent of Post Office, Mavelikkara Postal Division, Mavelikkara - 690 101. ..... Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. N. Anil Kumar, Sr. PCGC)
6. Original Application No. 180/00151/2020 - M.T. Cheriyan, S/o. M.M. Thomas, aged 68 years, Divisional Commercial Manager (Railways) (Retd.), Thiruvananthapuram Division, Thiruvananthapuram, 5 Mekkattuparambil House, Harmony Street, Lourdpuram, Thrissur East, Thrissur - 680005, Kerala State (Mob-9446506355). ..... Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. C.S.G. Nair) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
3. Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, Southern Railways, Park Town, Chennai - 600003.
4. Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai - 600003. ..... Respondents (By Advocate : Mrs. O.M. Shalina, SCGSC)
7. Original Application No. 180/00231/2020 - E. AbdulMajeed, aged 72 years, S/o. Late E. Moosa, Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Gr.I/G(Rtd.), Residing at BaithulNaleesa, Moozhikkal, Chelavoor PO, Kozhikode 673571, Kerala. ..... Applicant (By Advocate : Mrs. Shameena Salahudheen) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Director, Intelligence Bureau (MHA), Govt. of India, North Block Gate-7, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau, Head Quarters, New Delhi - 110001.
4. The Pay and Accounts Officer, Intelligence Bureau, PAO, (MHA), Government of India, AGCR Building, E. Wing, I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110003. ..... Respondents 6 (By Advocate : Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Sr. PCGC)
8. Original Application No. 180/00412/2020 -
1. N.U. Appukuttan, S/o. Untachy, aged 68 years, Income Tax Inspector (Retd.), Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit), Kochi, residing at Nikathil House, Pattanam, Vadekkekara PO, Ernakulam District-683522, (Mob:8281334167).
2. Remani C., W/o. Sujathan U.V., aged 68 years, Income Tax Inspector (Retd.), Office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode, residing at 35/233, Lakshmi, Vengeri PO, Kozhikode District - 673010 (Mob-9495456829).
3. P. Koya, S/o. P. Muhammed, aged 68 years, Dy. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) (Retd.), Office of Dy. Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Kozhikode, residing at Riyas Mahal, Muthur, Tirur - 676101 (Mob-8281362194).
4. T.C. Sudheer Bose, S/o. Late T.V. Chandran, aged 65 years, Private Secretary (Retd.), office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (II), Kochi, residing at Thinayal House, Pooyapilly, Vadakkekara PO, Ernakulam District - 683522, Mob. 9447571226.
5. K. Mani, S/o. Kunhiraman Adiyodi, aged 73 y ears, Notice Server (Retd.), Office of the Assistant Commr. Income Tax Central Circle, Kozhikode, Thuvattuthazham House, Chevayoor PO, Kozhikode District - 673017, (Mob.9895107849).
6. Vasudevan N. Nambisan, S/o. Late P. Narayanan Nambisan, Aged 73 years, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Retd.), Office of the Joint Commr. Of Income Tax, Palakkad, Parvathi Nivas, Kaniyarkode PO, Thiruvillwamala, Thrissur District - 680594, Mob-9495546868.
7. S. Arunachalam Pillai, S/o. K. Subramania Pillai, aged 73 years, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Retd), Office of the Chief Commr. of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, residing at TC 94/2424, Mithri Lane, Thamburanmukku, Vanchiyoor PO, Thriruvananthapuram - 695035.
8. T. Santha, W/o. K. Achuthan, aged 72 years, Senior Private Secretary (Retd.), Office of the Commr. Of Income Tax, Kozhikode, Kozhikode - 673011, Mob.9497217474. 7
9. Lilly P.M., W/o. Varghese V.L., aged 70 years, Administrative Officer (Retd.), office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur D-36, Maruthi Apartments, Adiyat Lane, Poothole PO, Thrissur District - 680004, Mob.9446328602.
10. Devayani K., W/o. Late Velayudhan N. aged 70 years, Daftry (Retd.), Office of the Commr. Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kozhikode, residing at Thachanvally Meethal House, Komathikara PO, Kothamangalam, Quilandy, Kozhikode District - 673305, Mob. 9656296445.
11. V. Vasudevan, S/o. V. Raman, Ezhuthachan, aged 74 years, Income Tax Inspector (Retd.), Office of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Palakkad, Vadanazhiyil House, South Panananna Road, Kaniyampuram PO, Ottappalam, Palakkad District - 679104, Mob.9947237613. ..... Applicants (By Advocate : Mr. C.S.G. Nair) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, I.S. Press Road, Cochin - 682 018.
3. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Central Revenue Building, I.S. Press Road, Cochin - 682018.
4. Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit), Central Revenue Building, I.S. Press Road, Cochin - 682018.
5. Commissioner of Income Tax II, Central Revenue Building, I.S. Press Road, Cochin - 682018.
6. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central Revenue Building, Mananchira, Kozhikode - 673001.
7. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Palakkad Range, Palakkad - 678014.
8. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ayakar Bhavan, English Church Road, Palakkad - 678014.
9. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Central Revenue Building, Mananchira, Kozhikode-673001. 8
10. Zonal Accounts Officer, Central Board of Direct Taxes, 3rd Floor, SanJuan Towers, Behind C.R. Buildings, Old Railway Station Road, Cochin - 682018.
11. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Mananchira, Kozhikode - 673 001.
12. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kozhikode - 673001.
13. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 003.
14. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Shakthan Thampuran Nagar, Thrissur HO, Thrissur - 680001. ..... Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. V.A. Shaji, ACGSC)
9. Original Application No. 180/00432/2020 - Elizabeth Chacko, W/o. K.P. Sunny, aged 68 years, Income Tax Officer (Retd.), Office of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range II, Thiruvananthapuram, residing at TC 27/283, Akash Lane, Vanchiyoor PO, Thiruvananthapuram - 695035 (Mob.8547333845). ..... Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. C.S.G. Nair) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, I.S. Press Road, Cochin - 682 018.
3. Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissionerate, ICE Bhavan, Press Club Road, Trivandrum - 695001, Thiruvananthapuram - 695001.
4. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range II, Commissionerate, ICE Bhavan, Press Club Road, Trivandrum - 695 001.
5. Zonal Accounts Officer, Central Board of Direct Taxes, 3rd Floor, SanJuan Towers, Behind C.R. Buildings, 9 Old Railway Station Raod, Cochin-682018. ..... Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. M.K. Padmanabhan Nair, ACGSC)
10. Original Application No. 180/00515/2020 -
1) K.G. Sreenivasan, S/o. K. Gopalan, aged 60 years, Retired Assistant Engineer (E/M), AAD E/M, O/o the Chief Engineer (NW) Kochi, Kataribagh, Kochi - 682004, residing at 01, Nalinakshan, MES Officers Enclave, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi.
2) V. Uthaman, S/o. K. Vasu, aged 61 years, retired Assistant Engineer (E/M), AAD E/M, O/o the Chief Engineer (NW), Kochi, Kataribagh, Kochi - 682004, residing at Kochuthayyil House near IMS Paravoor, Punnapra Post, Alappuzha. ..... Applicants (By Advocate : Mr. R. Sreeraj) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Military Engineer Services, Integrated Defense Headquarters, Kashmeer House, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Chief Engineer, Headquarters, Southern Command, Military Engineer Services, Pune - 400 001.
4. The Chief Engineer (NW), Military Engineer Services, Kochi - 682 004. ..... Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. N. Anil Kumar, Sr. PCGC)
11. Original Application No. 180/00522/2020 - K.M. Rajan, aged 67 years, S/o. K.C. Madhavan, Seaman's Welfare Officer, Chennai, (retired), Residing at Kottayarikil, Kosady PO, Madukka, Mundakayam, Kottayam District, Phone - 8157996263. ..... Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. Shafik M. Abdul Khadir) 10 Versus
1. Union of India, represented by Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Director General Shipping, Department of Shipping, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Jahaz Bhavan, W.H. Marg, Mumbai - 400 001.
3. The Engineer & Ship Surveyor and Head of Office, Mercantile Marine Department, Ministry of Shipping, Anchor Gate Building, II Floor, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001. ..... Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. Anil Ravi, ACGSC)
12. Original Application No. 180/00524/2020 - Vijayan P.R., S/o. P.R. Rmakrishnan Nair, aged 63 years, Principal Technical Officer (Retd.), National Institute of Oceanography, Cochin, residing at Krishnakripa, JCRA 176, Jawan Cross Road, AIMS, Ponnekkara PO, Cochin -682041, Mob-9249743430. ..... Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. C.S.G. Nair) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, Janpath Bhawan, B Wing, 8th Floor, New Delhi-110001.
2. Director General, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, Anusandhan Bhawan, 2, Rafi Marg, Sansad Marg Area, New Delhi - 110001.
3. Director, National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula, Goa - 403004.
4. Scientist-in-charge, National Institute of Oceanography, Regional Centre, Behind High Court of Kerala, Cochin - 682018. ..... Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. N. Anil Kumar, Sr. PCGC) 11
13. Original Application No. 180/00531/2020 - N.S. Vijayakumar, S/o. C.P. Sivaraman Nair, aged 60 years, Head Havildar, Central Excise (Retd.), Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Kottayam Division, Residing at Vinu Bhavan, Neerikkad PO, Kottayam District -
686564 (Mob.9048053973). ..... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. C.S.G. Nair)
Versus
1. Chief Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs, Central Revenue Buildings, I.S. Press Road, Cochin-682018.
2. Commissioner of Central Tax and Customs, ICE Bhavan, Press Club Road, Thiruvananthapuram - 695001.
3. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Kottayam Division, V. Publishers Building, Sreenivasa Iyer Rd., Kottayam -686001.
4. Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Excise, ICE Bhawan, Press Club Road, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.
5. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, Janpath Bhawan, B Wing, 8th Floor, New Delhi - 110001. ..... Respondents (By Advocate : Mrs. O.M. Shalina, SCGSC)
14. Original Application No. 180/00300/2021 -
1. P. Padmavathy, aged 71 years, W/o. Late P.R. Krishnan Kutty, Retired Office Superintendent, Office of the Chief Engineer (NW), Naval Base, Kochi - 682004, residing at Krishna Vihar, Paliekkara, Chittissery PO, Thrissur District, Pin - 680301, Mob. 9562745290.
2. C. Leelavathy, aged 61 years, (W/o. Late M. Gopalakrishnan, Retired Assistant Engineer E/M, Office of the CE(NW), Naval Base, Kochi - 682004), residing at Mullakkal House, Panthaparambu, Kundukadu, Mudappalur PO, Palakkad District, Pin - 678705, Mob. 9567954364.
12
3. M. Lakshmi Devi, aged 65 years, (Wife of late T.A. Unnikrishnan, Retired Office Superintendent, Office of the CE (NW), Naval Base, Kochi - 682004), residing at Amrita Kripa, Madathil House, Kuttumukku Road, Mannumkadu Lane, Cheroor PO, Thrissur district, Pin - 680008, Mob.-9596430265. ..... Applicants (By Advocate : Mr. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi - 110011.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, MES, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi - 110011.
3. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupati Ghat PO, Allahabad - 211014, Uttar Pradesh.
4. The Chief Engineer, Southern Command, Pune-411001.
5. The Chief Engineer (NW), Naval Base, Kochi - 682004. ..... Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. P.G. Jayan, ACGSC)
15. Original Application No. 180/00673/2021 - R.S. Rosechandran, S/o. V. Ramachandran, aged 69 years, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Retd.), Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Cochin, RAAG, TC No. 27/601-1, GGRA-73, V.V. Road, Vanchiyoor PO, Thiruvananthapuram-695035, (Mob.944634457), ([email protected]). ..... Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. C.S.G. Nair) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Chief Commissioner of Central Taxes and Customs, Central Revenue Building, I.S. Press Road, Cochin - 682018.
13
3. Commissioner of Central Taxes and Customs, Central Revenue Buildings, I.S. Press Road, Cochin - 682018.
4. Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Excise, Central Revenue Buildings, I.S. Press Road, Cochin - 682018. ..... Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. Sreenath S., ACGSC)
16. Original Application No. 180/00100/2022 - A. Venugopal, Retired Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Palakkad Range), Aayakar Bhawan, English Church Road, Palakkad-678014, aged 62 years, S/o. Late M. Balasundaram Nair, Residing at Ushus, House No. 4, Sridhanalakshmi Nagar, Uppilipalayam, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641105. ..... Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. George Varghese Perumpallikuttyil) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
3. Principal Director General of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circus, New Delhi- 110 001.
4. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Kochi-682018.
5. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Thrissur), Aayakar Bhawan, Sakthan Thampuran Nagar, Thrissur-
680001. ..... Respondents (By Advocate : Mrs. O.M. Shalina, SCGSC) These Original Applications having been heard on 17.10.2022, the Tribunal on 01.11.2022 delivered the following: 14
Common O R D E R Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
All the applicants in the above Original Applications were Central Government employees who retired from their respective services on superannuation on 30th June in different years. They raise a common question of law regarding payment of annual increment consequent to the implementation of the VIth Central Pay Commission. Since a common question of law and facts arose in all these OAs, all the cases were clubbed together heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. On implementation of the recommendation of the VIth Central Pay Commission, the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, [CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 in short] was published giving retrospective effect from 1.1.2006. By Rule 10 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, a uniform date of annual increment was formulated as 1st July of every year. The said Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 read as follows:
"10. Date of next increment in the revised pay structure - There will be a uniform date of annual increment, viz 1st July of every year. Employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st July will be eligible to be granted the increment. The first increment after fixation of pay on 1.1.2006 in the revised pay structure will be granted on 1.7.2006 for those employees for whom the date of next increment was between 1st July, 2006 to 1st January, 2007."
3. Subsequently, when the VIIth Central Pay Commission recommendation was accepted, the CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 was notified with effect from 1.1.2016. Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 is as follows: 15
"10. Date of next increment in revised pay structure.-
(1) There shall be two dates for grant of increment namely, 1st January and 1st July of every year, instead of existing date of 1st July: Provided that an employee shall be entitled to only one annual increment either on 1st January or 1st July depending on the date of his appointment, promotion or grant of financial upgradation.
(2) The increment in respect of an employee appointed or promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) during the period between the 2nd day of January and 1st day of July (both inclusive) shall be granted on 1st day of January and the increment in respect of an employee appointed or promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under MACPS during the period between the 2nd day of July and 1st day of January (both inclusive) shall be granted on 1st day of July.
Illustration:
(a) In case of an employee appointed or promoted in the normal hierarchy or under MACPS during the period between the 2nd day of July, 2016 and the 1st day of January, 2017, the first increment shall accrue on the 1st day of July, 2017 and thereafter it shall accrue after one year on annual basis.
(b) In case of an employee appointed or promoted in the normal hierarchy or under MACPS during the period between 2nd day of January, 2016 and 1st day of July, 2016, who did not draw any increment on 1st day of July, 2016, the next increment shall accrue on 1st day of January, 2017 and thereafter it shall accrue after one year on annual basis:
Provided that in the case of employees whose pay in the revised pay structure has been fixed as on 1st day of January, the next increment in the Level in which the pay was so fixed as on 1st day of January, 2016 shall accrue on 1st day of July, 2016:
Provided further that the next increment after drawal of increment on 1st day of July, 2016 shall accrue on 1st day of July, 2017.
(3) Where two existing Grades in hierarchy are merged and the junior Government servant in the lower Grade happens to draw more pay in the corresponding Level in the revised pay structure than the pay of the senior Government servant, the pay of the senior government servant shall be stepped up to that of his junior from the same date and he shall draw next increment in accordance with this rule."
4. The main change made from Rule 10 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 by the CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 was that, instead of providing a uniform date of annual increment of 1st July of every year, two dates were provided for grant of increment, namely 1st January and 1st July of every year, instead of the existing 16 date of 1st July. Primarily, Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 supplemented by its illustration is clear and beyond any ambiguity. There seems to be no scope for any other interpretation relating to the operation of the said Rule as such. The present dispute arises in relation to the implementation of Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016.
5. According to each of the applicants, he or she having completed minimum qualifying service by 30th June or 31st December in the revised pay scale has became eligible for annual increment on 1st July or 1st January as the case may be, but they stood superannuated either on 31st December or 30th June. They claim that on completion of eligibility period between 2nd July and 1st January or 2nd January and 1st July, irrespective of whether they were in service on succeeding 1st July or 1st January, as the case may be, they are entitled to the annual increment. Each of the applicant has approached this Tribunal claiming relief by placing reliance on the decision reported in P. Ayyamperumal v. The Registrar, CAT & Ors. in WP© No. 15732 of 2017, dated 15.09.2017, to support the claim.
6. In Ayyamperumal's case (supra), applicant retired as Additional Director General of Customs and Central Excise Department, Chennai on 30.6.2013, on attaining the age of superannuation. He claimed that he had completed service from 1.7.2012 to 30.6.2013 and since he was in service as on 30.06.2013, by virtue of Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, he was entitled to the increment. Claiming increment, he filed an OA before the 17 Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, which was rejected on a premise that an incumbent was entitled to increment on 1st July only, if he had continued in service on that date. Since Ayyamperumal was no longer in service on 1.7.2013, he was not entitled for the relief, held the Administrative Tribunal. Aggrieved by the decision, he moved the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 15732 of 2017. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that as per CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, increment has to be given only on 1.7.2013 but Ayyamperumal was superannuated on 30.6.2013. Since, the employee had completed one year of service from 1.7.2012 to 30.6.2013, the Division Bench held that he was entitled to the benefit of increment, which had accrued to him, during that period. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed.
7. The above decision placed reliance on the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department & Ors. v. M. Balasubramaniam [CDJ 2012 MHC 6525] which was stated to be passed under similar circumstances as that of Ayyamperumal's case (supra). In Balasubramaniam's case (supra), the High Court of Madras had held that the applicant therein had completed one year of service as on 31.03.2003, but the increment fell due on 1.4.2003, on which date he was not in service. It was held that he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service though the date of increment fell on the next date of his retirement. Hence, the applicant therein was granted one notional increment for the period from 1.4.2002 to 31.03.2003. 18
8. Evidently, in Balasubramaniam's case as well as Ayyamperumal's case (supra), High Court proceeded on a premise that applicants on completion of one year period prior to 1st July is entitled to get the increment notwithstanding whether he continued to be in employment as on 1st July.
9. Ayyamperumal's case (supra) was subjected to challenge in SLP No. 22283 of 2018. By order dated 23.7.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that on facts the court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. Consequently, the SLP was dismissed. Hence, Ayyamperumal's decision (supra), as confirmed by the Supreme Court is the binding law, the applicants herein contended.
10. The applicants herein further placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Gopal Singh v. Union of India [WP© No 10509 of 2019]. In that, the applicants had completed service during the period 1.7.2018 and 30th June, 2019, but stood superannuated on 1.7.2019. Following the analogy of the Madras High Court in Ayyamperumal's case (supra), the Delhi High Court held that the applicant therein was entitled to the benefit of notional increment, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant stood superannuated on 1st July. To support it the Delhi High Court placed reliance on an earlier judgment of the same High Court in Arun Chhibber v. Union of India & Ors. [WP© No. 13599 of 2019]. 19
11. According to the applicants herein, Gopal Singh's case (supra) was challenged in Union of India v. Gopal Singh [Diary No. 13959 of 2020] in an unnumbered SLP. The Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that it did not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court, dismissed the Special Leave Application. Consequently, the SLP was dismissed.
12. The learned counsel for the applicants placing reliance on the above decisions contended that Ayyamperumal's case (supra) and Gopal Singh's case (supra) proceeded on the same premise, which were confirmed in respective SLPs. The findings in Ayyamperumal's case (supra) and Gopal Singh's case (supra) have been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, they laid down the law binding on all the Courts in India, by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it was contended.
13. Vehemently opposing the above contention, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Smt. O.M. Shalina advanced two specific arguments. Firstly it was contended that the judgment in Ayyamperumal's case (supra) and Gopal Singh's case (supra) have not become final and the authoritative law on the point is yet to be laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was pointed out that in both the SLPs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not lay down any binding precedent. On the other hand, it was pointed out that, SLPs challenging judgments of other High Courts, which were in 20 tune with Ayyamperumal's case (supra), have been admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and are pending. The second argument advanced by the learned SCGSC was that the reasoning given by the Madras High Court in Ayyamperumal's case (supra) and the Delhi High Court in Gopal Singh's case (supra) do not stand to reason and failed to take note of the salient features of Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, and all the courts which followed Ayyamperumal's case (supra) committed the fundamental mistake of overlooking the specific features of legal provision. To buttress that contention, the learned SCGSC placed reliance on few decisions of other High Courts, which did not follow Ayyamperumal's case (supra). The learned SCGSC supplemented by the other Senior Panel Counsel for the Central Government as well as the ACGSC took up the contention that the law laid down by the Madras High Court in Ayyamperumal's case (supra) and by the Delhi High Court in Gopal Singh's case (supra) which were followed by few other Tribunals and High Courts do not lay down a law binding on all Courts in India, as one laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. Advancing the first limb of argument, the learned SCGSC submitted that the Supreme Court, while rejecting the SLPs directed against the judgments in Ayyamperumal's case (supra) and Gopal Singh's case (supra), did not go into the merits of the case. Both were rejected by non-speaking orders. Hence, High Courts judgments in Ayyamperumal's case (supra) and Gopal Singh's case (supra) did not merge with the respective orders and 21 consequently, they have not become binding law. To supplement this contention the learned SCGSC and other counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala [(2000) 6 SCC 359]. In that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non- speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e. gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the apex court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties."
15. On an identical situation, in Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishnan Kumar Vij & Anr. [(2010) 8 SCC 701], the binding nature and the question whether on dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order, it laid down a binding precedent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"Thus, according to the law laid down by the Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, it is clear that dismissal of a matter by this Court at the threshold, with non-speaking order, would not fall in the category of binding precedent. Meaning thereby that the impugned order of the Division Bench can still be challenged on merits by the Appellant Board. Thus, the earlier order of the High Court and this Court passed in Rajinder Singh Patpatia's case, creates no bar from re-examining the matter on merits."
16. The decision in Kunhayammed's case (supra) was reaffirmed in Khoday Distilleries Limited and & Ors. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara 22 Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal [(2019) 4 SCC 376]. The principle laid down in the above cases, was again reiterated in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Dhirendra Sunder Das & Ors. [(2019) 6 SCC 270].
17. These judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly show that when on SLP is dismissed by a non-speaking order, there is no merger of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court with that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it does not lay down a binding law as contemplated under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that Ayyamperumal's decision (supra) was affirmed by the Supreme Court by the rejection of SLP and the law laid down therein has become the law of the land applicable to all courts of India by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India cannot be sustained.
18. There is yet another reason to hold that the law has not been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It seems that the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Union of India & Ors. v. Sakha Ram Tripathi & Ors. Service Bench No. 484 of 2010 had held in tune with the judgment in Ayyamperumal's case (supra). That was challenged in SLP Diary No. 6468 of 2019 filed by the Department of Telecommunications. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, refused to condone the delay and consequently, the SLP was dismissed; however, observing that all questions of law were left open. The learned SCGSC also pointed out that in Union of India & Ors. v. Mahesh Kumar & Anr. as well as Union of India & Anr. v. 23 M. Siddaraj in SLPs Nos. 12190 of 2022 and 4722 of 2021 respectively, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the operation of the judgments passed by the High Court of Allahabad and High Court of Karnataka respectively, which had followed Ayyamperumal's case (supra). Relying on this, it was pointed out by the learned SCGSC that the question whether the law laid down in Ayyamperumal's case (supra) by the Madras High Court still remains to be finally settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
19. The third reason to hold that the law in this regard, still remains unsettled is in the light of various inconsistent decisions rendered by the different High Courts. In the reply statement filed by the respondents it was pointed that Madras Bench of this Tribunal, subsequent to Ayyamperumal's case (supra), by the orders in OAs Nos. 170 of 2019, 309 of 2019, 312 of 2019 and 26 of 2019 had dismissed the requests relating to notional increment for pensionary benefits. This was followed in subsequent judgments produced as Annexures R1(C), R1(D), R1(E) and R1(F) respectively. Thus, Madras Bench has later taken a view different from the law in Ayyamperumal's case (supra).
20. We are in full agreement with the above contention of the learned SCGSC supplemented by the other counsel for the Central Government. It is clear that Ayyamperumal's case (supra) as well Gopal Singh's case (supra) and various other judgments which are in tune with that line of reasoning 24 cannot be treated as laying down binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
21. The learned SCGSC invited our attention to the Office Memorandum dated 3.2.2021 F. No. 19/2/2018-Estt.(Pay-I) issued by the DoP&T, Government of India and produced as Annexure R1(A). DoP&T took the view that the law laid down in Ayyamperumal's case (supra) was in personam. It was also stated therein that in SLP Dy. No. 6468/2019, against the judgment dated 3.5.2017 of High Court of Lucknow Bench in WP No. 484 of 2010 - Union of India & Ors. v. Sakha Ram Tripathy & Ors. arising from a similar case, though the SLP was dismissed consequent to the dismissal of application to condone the delay, in filing the SLP, it was made clear that SLP was dismissed keeping all legal questions of law open. It was observed in the OM that since the question of law was kept open, the Government was of the view that Ayyamperumal's case (supra) did not lay down a judgment in rem. Hence, all the Ministries and Departments were directed to dispose of the pending grievances seeking notional increments for pensionary benefits and also to defend the various pending cases in the matter.
22. In the note attached to the above OM produced as Annexure R1(A), it was stated that to claim increment, an employee must satisfy not only the condition of becoming entitled for increment, but also should continue to be on duty as a Government servant on the due date (1st July/1st January). It also 25 referred to the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Principal Accountant General of A.P., Hyderabad v. C. Subba Rao dated 27.1.2005 [2005 (2) SCT 505], in which it was held that the view taken earlier that increment being a reward for unblemished past service, the Government servant retiring on the last of the month would also be entitled for increment even after such increment was due after retirement, does not stand to reason. It was stated that on references to all the rules governing the situation there was no warrant to come to such a conclusion. Referring to Article 43 of the CS Regulations, it was clarified that increment was given as a periodical rise to a Government employee for the good behavior in the service. Such increment was possible only when the appointment was progressive appointment and it was not a universal rule. Further under Rule 14 of the Pension Rules, a person was entitled for pay, increment and other allowances only when he was entitled to receive pay out of the Consolidated Fund of India and continued to be in Government service.
23. In all the above cases, the various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal answered the identical issue, mainly considering the date on which the applicant gets superannuated. The effect of a grace period granted in terms of FR 56 was also considered. In all the above cases it was held that by virtue of FR 56, if a person actually retires on a date in the middle of the month they will be retiring by the end of month and by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the pensionary benefits can be 26 reckoned from (1st July/1st January). The issue was mainly on the premise that the relationship of the employer and employee stood terminated in the afternoon of the actual date of retirement or on the last day of that month, as the case may be. It was held that the relationship of the employer and the employee ceases on that day. It does not survive on the next date. It seems that Ayyamperumal's case (supra) was not applied in all the above decisions on a single premise that the employer and employee relationship in relation to all the employees come to an end by virtue of their superannuation on the last day of the month.
24. Supplementing the above view, the learned SCGSC placed reliance on the legal provisions. Rule 56A of the Fundamental Rules inter alia provides that every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years. The proviso to Rule 56 provides that a Government servant whose date of birth is the 1st of a month shall retire from the service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of 60 years. Rule 17(1) of Fundamental Rules provides that an officer shall begin to draw pay and allowances attached to the post w.e.f. the date when he assumes duties of that post and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides that the date of retirement of a person shall be treated as his last working day and his claim to pension shall be regulated by the provisions of Rules in force at the time of his retirement. As per Rule 83(1) of the Rules, 27 1972 pension becomes payable from the date a Government servant ceases to be born on the establishment. Rule 34 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides for determination of average emoluments with reference to emoluments drawn by the Government servant during the last ten months of the service. Emoluments, by virtue of Rule 33 of the said Rules means 'basic pay' as defined under rule 9(21)(a)(1) of the Fundamental Rules.
25. Applying the above legal position with respect to Rule 10 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 and with reference to the law regarding the date of retirement of an employee, it is evident that an employee who retires on the last working day of a month previous to 1st January or 1st July as the case may be, ceases to be a Government employee on the 1st of January or 1st July as the case may be and is not entitled for the increment.
26. This issue can be examined from a different angle also. It depends on the question whether increment is to be considered only a reward for an unblemished past service or whether it also involves the component of an incentive for good behavior for future service. If the former proposition is accepted, it is possible to contend that a person who has completed the minimum required past service will automatically be entitled for increment notwithstanding that he ceases to an employee immediately thereafter. Clearly, this is on a premise that increment is considered as a recognition made having regard to his past service. However, if the latter position is accepted the employee should not only complete the minimum prescribed service, but should also continue to be in service. The 28 note attached to Annexure R1(A) clearly shows that the Government is of the view that increment is given as a periodical rise to a Government employee for the good behavior in the service and increment is possible only when the appointment is progressive appointment. This clearly implies that the employee, to claim increment, should satisfy the twin tests, namely; completion of minimum statutory period and continuance in service thereafter.
27. The above principle, which forms the logic behind the grant of increment can be tested with reference to the relevant Rule 10 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2016. Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016, sub rule (2) provides that in respect of an employee appointed or promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under the MACP scheme during the period between 2nd January to 1st July (both dates inclusive) shall be granted on the 1st day of January and the increment in respect of the employee appointed or promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under the MACPs during the period between 2nd July and 1st January shall be granted on the 1st day of July. Evidently, the Rule coupled with its illustrations clearly postulates the minimum qualifying service period and another component of the date of grant/date of accrual as the next day; namely, the 1st July or 1st January as the case may be. Clearly, the terms "shall be granted on 1st July" and "shall be granted on 1st of January"
indicates the continuance of the status as an employee on 1st July/1st January, which follows the period of qualifying service, as the case may be. Thus, 29 the rule first postulates the entitlement period and then, the granting of it (or accrual) on the 1st January or 1st of July as the case may be. If the intention of the legislature was to extend the benefit to person who retires on completion of qualifying period, it need not have mentioned another date as the date of accrual/date of grant of increment. This clearly conveys the intention of the legislature. Applying this principle, it is clear that a person who ceases to be employee and is a pensioner as on 1st January or 1st July as the case may be, cannot be entitled to increment. To that extent Ayyamperumal's case (supra) does not lay down the binding law.
28. The Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP 2503 of 2016 - Hari Prakash & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in Manu/HP/1035/2020, after an exhaustive consideration of the legal position in relation to the consequence of rejection of an SLP by a non- speaking order, held that by the dismissal of the SLP arising from Ayyamperumal's case (supra) there was no merger of the judgment in Ayyamperumal's case (supra) with the order of rejection of SLP. It was held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not consider the legal position involved in that case on merits and accordingly, it cannot be treated as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. On that legal premise, the Division Bench held that the employee before it, was a pensioner as on 1.4.2003 and consequently not entitled to the increment.
30
29. However, we should also note that this Bench, by order in OA 1055/2018 and connected cases, a copy of which was produced as Annexure A6, had followed Ayyamperumal's case (supra). Annexure A6 shows that none of the above arguments, now advanced before us, especially in relation to the legal position that by virtue of the dismissal of the SLP by a non- speaking order, there is no merger of the judgment, was seen advanced before the bench. Further the above legal position now advanced is not seen raised before the Bench at that point of time. The further question whether legally the persons who stand retired as on the date of 1st of that month are entitled for increment was also not seen considered elaborately on merits. Hence, we are unable to follow that proposition.
30. The above discussion leads us to conclude that we are in agreement with the view taken by the CAT, Madras Bench evident from the order in OA 1661 of 2013 and the orders produced as Annexures R1(C) to R1(F) as well as the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Hari Prakash's case (supra). Same view was taken by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhavsingh Tomar & Ors. v. M.P. Power Management Company Ltd. & Ors. (WP No. 9940/2020) as well as by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Subba Rao'case (supra). The DoP&T office memorandum dated 3.2.2021 is in tune with the above legal proposition.
31
31. Necessarily all the OAs have to fail. They are accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
(K.V. EAPEN) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
32
Original Application No. 180/00687/2019 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the judgment dated 15.9.2017 in WP 15732/2017 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the order dated 23.7.2018 in SLP © Diary No.(s) 22283/2018.
Annexure A3 - True copy of the representation dated 26.9.2018 submitted by the applicant to the 1st respondent. Annexure A4 - True copy of the letter No. GEO10/C/IPS/J-17-696, dated 2.1.2019.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1 - Notification dated 13.5.1998 of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions, New Delhi.
Original Application No. 180/00033/2020 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the PPO No. 514080700092. Annexure A2 - True copy of the revised PPO issued by the 4th respondent on 20.7.2017.
Annexure A3 - True copy of the judgment dt. 15.9.2017 in WP No. 15732/2017.
Annexure A4 - True copy of the order in SLP Dairy No. 22283/2018. Annexure A5 - True copy of the representation dt. 19.11.2018.
Annexure A6 - True copy of the letter No. Coord./Expdt./Complain/Pt.01/18-19/200 dt. 17.12.2018. Annexure A7 - True copy of the reminder dt. 25.2.2019 submitted to the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A8 - True copy of the reminder dt. 3.4.2019 submitted to the 3rd respondent.
33
Annexure A9 - True copy of the letter No.
Dy.CA/CBIC/SZ/Chennai/Coord./2018-19/22 dt.
5.4.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A10 - True copy of the order in OA No. 1055/2018 and connected cases dt. 3.12.2019.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1 - True copy of DoPT Office Memorandum dated 3.2.2021. Annexure R2 - True copy of order the Hon'ble High Court judgment in P. Ayyamperumal case - WP No. 15732 of 2017. Annexure R3 - True copy of order in Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the year 2005 in C. Subba Rao case - WP No. 22042 of 2003.
Annexure R4 - True copy of order of Hon'ble High Court dated 23.10.2018 in WP © No. 9062/2018.
Annexure R5 - True copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29.3.2019 dismissing the SLP © Dy. No. 6468/2019.
Annexure R6 - True copy of order of Hon'ble Supreme court in the Civil Appeal No. 3439 of 2017.
Annexure R7 - True copy of DoPT Office Memorandum dated 24.6.2021.
Annexure R8 - True copy of order of Hyderabad Bench of Hon'ble CAT in OA Nos. 331/2019 and 332/2019 dated 4.6.2019. Annexure R9 - True copy of order of Hon'ble CAT Madras Bench dated 19.3.2019 in OA No. 310/309/2019.
Annexure R10 - True copy of order of Hon'ble CAT Madras Bench OA No. 310/00312/2019.
Annexure R11 - True copy of order of Hon'ble CAT Madras Bench dated 27.3.2019 in OA No. 310/00026/2019.
Original Application No. 180/00034/2020 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the PPO No. 495211300469. 34 Annexure A2 - True copy of the judgment dt. 15.9.2017 in WP No. 15732/2017.
Annexure A3 - True copy of the order in SLP Dairy No. 22283/2018. Annexure A4 - True copy of the representation dt. 10.12.2018. Annexure A5 - True copy of the reminder dt. 5.8.2019. Annexure A6 - True copy of the order in OA No. 1055/2018 and connected cases dt. 3.12.2019.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Nil Original Application No. 180/00047/2020 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the PPO No. C/ENG/19734/2005 issued by the 5th respondent.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the letter No. CRO/34/125/VKS/6/2006, dt.
30.11.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent. Annexure A3 - True copy of the Corrg. PPO. No. th C/CORR/ENG/30012/2012 issued by the 5 respondent. Annexure A4 - True copy of the OM No. 10/02/2011-E.III/A dt.
19.3.2012 issued by the Department of Expenditure. Annexure A5 - True copy of the representation to the 3rd respondent on 22.11.2018 with copies to 3rd and 4th respondents. Annexure A6 - True copy of the letter No. B/10601/PAY FIX/VKS/2880/E.1B(P&A) dt. 20.12.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A7 - True copy of the letter dt. 7.1.2019. Annexure A8 - True copy of the letter dt. 5.2.2019. Annexure A9 - True copy of the letter dt. 7.3.2019.
Annexure A10 - True copy of the letter No. CRO/34/409575/VKS/2006(24/32) dt. 28.3.2019 issued 35 by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A11 - True copy of the letter dt. 26.4.20. Annexure A12 - True copy of the judgment dt. 15.9.2017 in WP No. 15732/2017.
Annexure A13 - True copy of the order in SLP Dairy No. 22283/2018. Annexure A14 - True copy of the order dt. 17.4.2018 in OA No. 571/2017 of the Principal Bench New Delhi.
Annexure A15 - True copy of the order in OA No. 1055/2018 and connected cases dt. 3.12.2019.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Nil Original Application No. 180/00138/2020 APPLICANTS' ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the Pension Payment Order No. POSTAL/2013/DE/50214/IX dated 17.4.2013 issued by the GM Finance, Postal Account Office, Shamnath Marg Civil Lines, Delhi to the 1st applicant.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the Pension Payment Order No. POSTAL/2015/KE/22472/1/pen1 dated 30.1.2015 issued by the Director of Accounts, Kerala Circle to the 1st applicant.
Annexure A3 - True copy of the Pension Payment Order No. POSTAL/2012/KE/21109/pen6 dated 6.6.2012 issued by the Director of Accounts (Postal) Kerala Circle to the 2nd applicant.
Annexure A4 - True copy of the judgment dated 15.9.2017 in WP© 15732/2017 of the Madras High Court.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the order dated 23.7.2018 in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 22283/2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Annexure A6 - True copy of the representation dated 5.2.2019 submitted by the 1st applicant to the 4th respondent. 36 Annexure A7 - True copy of the representation dated 5.2.2019 submitted by the 2nd applicant to the 5th respondent. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1 - True copy of the extract of the Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
Annexure R2 - True copy of the OM No. 1396752/2019-Estt(Pay-1) dated 11.11.2019 of Department of Personnel & Training. Original Application No. 180/00151/2020 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the PPO No.0601210991. Annexure A2 - True copy of the revised PPO No. 20117060100105 Annexure A3 - True copy of the judgment dt. 15.9.2017 in WP No. 15732/2017.
Annexure A4 - True copy of the order in SLP Dairy No. 22283/2018. Annexure A5 - True copy of the representation dt. 27.1.2020. Annexure A6 - True copy of the order in OA No. 1055/2018 and connected cases dt. 3.12.2019.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1 - Photocopy of the OM dated 11/11/2019 of Department of Personnel & Training.
Annexure R2 - Photocopy of the order dated 5.4.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 4722/2021. Original Application No. 180/00231/2020 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the judgment dated 15.9.2017 in WP 15732/2017 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the order dated 23.7.2018 in SLP © Diary No(s) 22283/2018 on the file of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 37 Annexure A3 - True copy of the judgment in OA No. 180/1055/2018. Annexure A4 - True copy of the representation dated 1.1.2020 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the judgment in OA 021/431/2020 on 8.7.2020 Hyderabad of this Hon'ble Tribunal. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Nil Original Application No. 180/00412/2020 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the PPO No. 572081200492 (1st applicant). Annexure A2 - True copy of the PPO No. 572081200458 (2nd applicant). Annexure A3 - True copy of the PPO No. 572081200443 (3rd applicant). Annexure A4 - True copy of the PPO No. 572081500202 (4th applicant). Annexure A5 - True copy of the PPO No. 57208.07.0038.0(5th applicant). Annexure A6 - True copy of the PPO No. 57208.07.0040.1 (6th applicant).
Annexure A7 - True copy of the PPO No. 57208.07.0042.3 (7th applicant).
Annexure A8 - True copy of the PPO No. 57208.08.00338 (8th applicant). Annexure A9 - True copy of the PPO 572081000395 (9th applicant). Annexure A10 - True copy of the PPO 572081000373 (10th applicant). Annexure A11 - True copy of the PPO 57208.06.0043.1(11th applicant). Annexure A12 - True copy of the judgment dt. 15.9.2017 in WP No. 15732/2017 of Hon'ble High Court, Madras. Annexure A13 - True copy of the order in SLP Diary No. 22283/2018. Annexure A14 - True copy of the order dt. 3.12.2019 in OA No. 1055/2018 and connected cases.
38Annexure A15 - True copy of the representation dt. 27.1.2020 (1st applicant).
Annexure A16 - True copy of the representation dt. 10.7.2190 (2nd applicant).
Annexure A17 - True copy of the representation dt. 7.7.2019 (3rd applicant).
Annexure A18 - True copy of the representation dt. 27.1.2020 (4th applicant).
Annexure A19 - True copy of the representation dt. 9.7.2019 (5th applicant).
Annexure A20 - True copy of the representation dt. 15.2.2020 (6th applicant).
Annexure A21 - True copy of the representation dt. 11.7.2019 (7th applicant).
Annexure A22 - True copy of the representation dt. 5.7.2019 (8th applicant).
Annexure A23 - True copy of the representation dt. 8.7.2019 (9th applicant).
Annexure A24 - True copy of the representation dt. 12.8.2019 (10th applicant).
Annexure A25 - True copy of the representation dt. 25.2.2020 (11th applicant).
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1 - True copy of the OM No. 1396752/2019-Rstt.(Pay-I) dated 11.11.2019 issued by the DOPT to Ministry of Railways.
Original Application No. 180/00432/2020 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the PPO No. 041781200018. Annexure A2 - True copy of the judgment dt. 15.9.2017 in WP No. 15732/2017.
39Annexure A3 - True copy of the order in SLP Dairy No. 22283/2018. Annexure A4 - True copy of the order dt. 3.12.2019 in OA No. 1055/2018 and connected cases.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the representation dt. 25.3.2020.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Nil Original Application No. 180/00515/2020 APPLICANTS' ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the judgment dated 15.9.2017 in WP 15732/2017 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the order dated 23.7.2018 in SLP © Dairy No(s) 22283/2018 on the file of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Annexure A-2A - True copy of the order dated 8.8.2019 in RP © 1731/2019 in SLP © 22008/2018 on the file of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Annexure A3 - True copy of the representation dated 8.6.2020 submitted by the 1st applicant.
Annexure A4 - True copy of the representation dated 17.6.2019 submitted by the 2nd applicant.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the common order dated 10.6.2019 passed by Ernakulam Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA 55/2018 and connected cases.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1 - True copy of letter No. F. No. A-23011/36/2013-Ad.IIA, dated 18.10.2019.
Annexure R2 - True copy of the DoP&T OM F. No. 1453545/2021- Estt.(Pay-I) dated 24.6.2021.
40Original Application No. 180/00522/2020 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the order letter No. 1-Est(60)/9221 dated 6.8.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the order No. 77(No PB-5(20)/93) dated 21.7.1994 issued by the Deputy Director General of Shipping.
Annexure A3 - True copy of the judgment dated 15.9.2017 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP© No. 15732 of 2017. Annexure A4 - True copy of the representation dated 23.4.2020 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the OM No. 1396752/2019-Estt(Pay-I) dated 11.11.2019 issued by the DoPT.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1 - Copy of the DoPT OM No. 19/2/2018-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 3rd February, 2021.
Annexure R2 - Copy of the MACP Order D.O. No. 1-Est(6)/5424-1, dated 24.7.2017.
Annexure R3 - Copy letter No. A-23011/36/2013-Ad.IIA dated 20th November, 2020.
Annexure R4 - Copy letter No. PC-VI/2018/R-1/1-Part(1), dated 21st May, 2020.
Annexure R5 - Copy letter No. 16/2/2020-Estt(Pay-I) dated 21st January, 2020.
Original Application No. 180/00524/2020 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the PPO No. NIO/Pen.case/565. Annexure A2 - True copy of the judgment dt. 15.9.2017 in WP No. 15732/2017.
41Annexure A3 - True copy of the order in SLP Diary No. 22283/2018. Annexure A4 - True copy of the judgment in WP© No. 10509/2019 dt.
23.1.2020.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the order in SLP No. 13959/2020 dt.
13.10.2020.
Annexure A6 - True copy of the representation dt. 8.12.2018. Annexure A7 - True copy of the representation dt. 21.12.2019. Annexure A8 - True copy of the order in OA No. 1055/2018 dtd.
3.12.2019 of this Hon'ble CAT.
Annexure MA1- True copy of the order in Principal Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal has disposed of a number of such OAs by order dt. 15.7.2021.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1 - True copy of letter dated 18.10.2019. Annexure R2 - True copy of letter dated 21.1.2020.
Original Application No. 180/00531/2020 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the judgment dt. 15.9.2017 in WP No. 15732/2017.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the order in SLP Diary No. 22283/2018. Annexure A3 - True copy of the judgment in WP© No. 10509/2019 dt.
23.1.2020.
Annexure A4 - True copy of the order in SLP No. 13959/2020 dt.
13.10.2020.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the representation dt. 15.7.2020. Annexure A6 - True copy of the order in OA No. 1055/2018 and connected cases dt. 3.12.2019.
42RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1(A)-True copy of the OM F. No. 19/2/2018-Estt(pay-I) issued by the Department of Personnel and Training dated 2.2.2021.
Annexure R1(B)- True copy of the judgment dated 6.11.2020 in CWP 2503 of 2016 issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
Annexure R1(C)-True copy of order dated 13.3.2019 in MA No. 71/2019 (in) (&) OA No. 170/2019 of CAT Madras Bench. Annexure R1(D- True copy of order dated 19.3.2019 in OA 310//00309/2019 of CAT Madras Bench.
Annexure R1(E)- True copy of order dated 19.3.2019 in OA 310/00312/2019 of CAT Madras Bench.
Annexure R1(F)- True copy of order dated 27.3.2019 in OA No. 310/00026/2019 of CAT Madras Bench.
Original Application No. 180/00300/2021 APPLICANTS' ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the PTO No. 10 dated 1.10.2009. Annexure A2 - True copy of the extract of the order dated 15.9.2017 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 15732/2017.
Annexure A3 - True copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Diary No. 22283/2018 dated 23.7.2018.
Annexure A4 - True copy of the final order dated 3.12.2019 of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA 180/1055/2018 and connected cases.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the representation dated 15.6.2020 submitted by the 1st applicant to the 5th respondent. Annexure A6 - True copy of the representation dated 9.6.2020 submitted by the 2nd applicant to the 5th respondent. Annexure A7 - True copy of the representation dated 27.6.2020 submitted by the 3rd applicant to the 5th respondent. 43 Annexure A8 - True copy of the representation dated 8.9.2020 submitted by the 1st applicant to the 4th respondent. Annexure A9 - True copy of the representation dated 3.10.2020 submitted by the 3rd applicant to the 4th respondent. Annexure A10 - True copy of the reply dated 16.9.2020 of the 4th respondent to the 1st applicant.
Annexure A11 - True copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 1.9.2017 in Diary No. 23440/2017.
Annexure A12 - True copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 24.4.2018 in Civil Appeal arising out of Diary No. 8754/2018.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1 - True copy of letter No. F. No. A-23011/36/2013-Ad.IIA, dated 18.10.2019.
Annexure R2 - True copy of OM No. F. No. 1453545/2021-Estt(Pay-1) dt. 24 June 2021.
Original Application No. 180/00673/2021 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the PPO No. 514081200357. Annexure A2 - True copy of the judgment dt. 15.9.2017 in WP No. 15732/2017.
Annexure A3 - True copy of the order in SLP Dairy No. 22283/2018. Annexure A4 - True copy of the representation dt. 9.7.2021.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the letter F. No.
GEXCOM/III(20)/249/2021-ACCTS, dt. 9.11.2021
rd
issued by the 3 respondent.
Annexure A6 - True copy of the order in OA No. 1055/2018 and
connected cases dt. 3.12.2019.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES
Annexure R1 - Office Memorandum F. No. 4-21/2017-IC/E.III(A) dated
31.7.2018.
44
Annexure R2 - Office Memorandum F. No. 19/2/2018-Estt(Pay-I) dated
3.2.2021.
Annexure R3 - CWP No. 2503 of 2016 a/w CWPOA No. 663 of 2020
dated 6.11.2020 of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
Annexure R4 - WP© No. 9062 of 2018 and CM No. 34892 of 2018 dated 23.10.2018 of High Court of New Delhi. Annexure R5 - MA/310/00071/2019(in)(&) OA/310/00170/2019 dated 13.3.2019 Hon'ble CAT, Madras Bench.
Annexure R6 - OA/310/00309/2019 dated 19.3.2019 Hon'ble CAT, Madras Bench.
Annexure R7 - OA/310/00312/2019 dated 19.3.2019 Hon'ble CAT, Madras Bench.
Annexure R8 - OA310/00026/2019 dated 27.3.2019, Hon'ble CAT, Madras Bench.
Original Application No. 180/00100/2022 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the representation dated 24.12.2019 submitted by the applicant to the 4th respondent. Annexure A2 - True copy of the order dated 15.9.2017 in WP© No. 15372/2017 of the Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal v. The Registrar and others. Annexure A3 - True copy of the order dated 23.7.2018 in SLP © No. 22283/2018 of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. P. Ayyamperumal.
Annexure A4 - True copy of the order dated 8.8.2019 in RP © No. 1731/2019 of the Supreme Court.
Annexure A5 - True copy of order No. F.No. Pr.CC-CHN/Estt.-
2/Pensioner's grievance/2021-22 dated 11.10.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent.
45RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a)- True copy of the order dated 29.3.2019 in SLP(C) Dy.
No. 6468/2019.
Annexure R1(b)- True copy of the OM No. 19/2/2018-Estt(Pay-I) dated 3.2.2021.
Annexure R1(c)- True copy of the judgment dated 27.1.2005 of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Andra Pradesh. Annexure R1(d)- True copy of the order dated 24.3.2021 in Writ Petition Nos. 11125/2020(S-CAT) and 2356/2021 (S-CAT).
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-