Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Jagdev Singh vs Department Of Post on 4 April, 2024
(O.A./060/885/2023 & 3 O.A.s)
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A./885/2023 with M.A./199/2024,
O.A./886/2023 with M.A./197/2024,
O.A./887/2023 with M.A./198/2024, &
O.A./891/2023 with M.A./193/2024
Chandigarh, the 4th day of April, 2024
HON'BLE SHRI RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
(1) Faqir Chand s/o Late Sh. Munni Lal, r/o H.No. 295,
Green City, Satnam Nagar, Rajpura, Punjab.
...Applicant in O.A./885/2023
(Advocate: Sh. K.B. Sharma)
(2) Neelam Sharma w/o late Sh. Jagdish Lal Sharma, r/o
H.No. 141, SBS Colony, Rajpura Township, Rajpura,
Punjab. (Group-C)
...Applicant in O.A./886/2023
(Advocate: Sh. K.B. Sharma)
(3) Ajmer Singh s/o late Sh. Khila Ram, r/o VPO Pasiana,
Tehsil & District Patiala, Punjab - 147001.
...Applicant in O.A./887/2023
(Advocate: Sh. K.B. Sharma)
(4) Jagdev Singh s/o Sh. Fateh Singh, r/o House No. 658,
Ward No. 5, Mandi Gobindgarh Road, Amloh, District
Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.
...Applicant in O.A./891/2023
(Advocate: Sh. K.B. Sharma)
(O.A./060/885/2023 & 3 O.A.s)
2
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Information Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. (E-Mail: secretary-
[email protected]).
2. The Chief Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Sector-
17, Chandigarh-160017.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Patiala Division, Patiala
- 147001. ([email protected])
...Respondents in O.A.Nos. 885/2023, 886/2023,
887/2023 & 891/2023
(Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC)
O R D E R (Oral)
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. The above 4 Original Applications are taken up together and heard finally at this stage with the consent of ld. counsel for both sides as a common question of law and facts are involved in all these cases.
2. M.A.s connected with the respective O.A.s as mentioned in the title have been filed by the respondents for placing on record their written statements. These M.A.s are allowed and written statements filed on behalf of the respondents are taken on record.
(O.A./060/885/2023 & 3 O.A.s) 3
3. Ld. counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants do not wish to file replication to the written statements filed by the respondents.
4. The applicants have submitted that all the applicants have retired from the offices of respondents either on 30th June year or 31st December of a preceding year after completion of 365 days of working; therefore, they are entitled for increment that falls due on 1st July or 1st January of the next year, as the case may be. All the applicants are aggrieved as they have not been granted the benefit of annual increment, which was otherwise due to them, only on the ground that by the time the increment became due, they were not in service.
5. The applicants have relied upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 2471 of 2023 arising out of SLP (C) 6185/2020 titled The Director (Admin and HR) KPTCL & Ors Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors decided on 11.04.2023, wherein the Supreme Court, while dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 preferred by the respondents has held that: "6.7 Similar view has also been expressed by different High Courts, namely, the Gujarat High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Orissa High Court and the Madras High Court. As observed hereinabove, to interpret Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations in the manner in which the appellants have understood and/or interpretated would lead to arbitrariness and denying a government servant the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned while rendering (O.A./060/885/2023 & 3 O.A.s) 4 specified period of service with good conduct and efficiently in the last preceding year. It would be punishing a person for no fault of him. As observed hereinabove, the increment can be withheld only by way of punishment or he has not performed the duty efficiently. Any interpretation which would lead to arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness should be avoided. If the interpretation as suggested on behalf of the appellants and the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is accepted, in that case it would tantamount to denying a government servant the annual increment which he has earned for the services he has rendered over a year subject to his good behaviour. The entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day. In the present case the word "accrue" should be understood liberally and would mean payable on the succeeding day. Any contrary view would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness and denying a government servant legitimate one annual increment though he is entitled to for rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiently and therefore, such a narrow interpretation should be avoided. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria (supra); the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal (supra); and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra). We do not approve the contrary view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh (supra) and the decisions of the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Pavithran (O.P.(CAT) No. 111/2020 decided on 22.11.2022) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Hari Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020).
(O.A./060/885/2023 & 3 O.A.s) 5
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
6. The respondents have submitted that by the time the increment became due to the applicants, they were not in service, therefore, they could not be granted the benefit of notional increment due to them either on 1st July or 1st January of the next year.
7. This Tribunal has heard ld. counsel for both sides, perused the material available on record and gone through the judgment in the matter of The Director (Admin and HR) KPTCL & Ors Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors (supra). Following the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in C.P. Mundinamani & Ors (supra), this Tribunal has also adjudicated upon a bunch of cases, lead case being O.A./060/793/2018 titled N.K. Dhiman Vs. UoI & Ors. on this issue and decided the case in favour of the applicants therein vide order dated 09.08.2023, whereby the respondents have been directed to grant the benefit of one notional increment to the applicants due on 1st July or 1st (O.A./060/885/2023 & 3 O.A.s) 6 January of the next year, as the case may be, with all consequential benefits.
8. Since the issue involved in these Original Applications is no longer res integra as the same has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani (supra), nothing remains further to be adjudicated upon in these matters. It is evident that the case of the applicants is covered on all fours by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. (supra). Further, in order to maintain judicial parity, similar order may be passed as passed by this Tribunal in N.K. Dhiman Vs. UoI & Ors.(supra).
9. Accordingly, all these Original Applications are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of one notional increment to the applicants due on 1st July or 1st January of the next year, as the case may be, with all consequential benefits. Let the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
10. There shall be no order so as to costs.
11. A copy of this order be placed in all connected files.
(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR) MEMBER (J) S*