Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Shiv Charan Lal Meena vs Cgda on 20 May, 2024
1
OA No. 258/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
Original Application No. 258/2024
DATE OF ORDER: 20.05.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)
Shiv Charan Lal Meena son of Shri Gobali Ram Meena aged
about 60 years, resident of P-904, Kendriya Vihar-2, Jagatpura,
Jaipur-302029, Rajasthan. Earlier working as Senior A.O. PCDA
(Army), Jaipur. Group 'B' Service
Mob. 9414372434, Email:[email protected]
Sub:-Notional Increment
......Applicant
(Shri Amit Mathur - counsel for the applicant)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar, Rao
Tularam Marg, Sport View, Palam, New Delhi-110010
3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Army), Khatipura
Road, Jaipur-302012, Rajasthan.
....Respondents
(Shri Manu Bhargav- counsel for the respondents)
ORDER (Oral)
Per: RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking for the present original application may kindly be allowed. Order Annexure-A/1 dated 13.12.2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside. Respondents may be directed to allow the applicant one increment with all consequential benefits including revision of 2 OA No. 258/2024 pension benefits and pension. They may further be directed to make the payment with interest.
Any other relief or direction which this learned Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of applicant. Cost of original application may kindly be awarded in favour of humble applicant.
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2020. He had outstanding service record in his entire service career. After the sixth pay commission report, the Central Government fixed 1st July as the date of increment for all employees by making amendment in the various Rules including Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, due to which the applicant was denied the benefit of one grade increment on account of retirement on 30th June i.e. one day before 1st July, although he had completed a full one year in the service as on 30th June i.e. on the date of retirement so, he is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of one grade increment admissible on 1st July.
3. The applicant also states that the controversy involved in the present O.A. is no more res integra in as much as this Tribunal including Principal Bench, various Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally settled the controversy 3 OA No. 258/2024 holding that the employee who retires from service on 30th June are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of one grade increment. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Director (Admn. & HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Muundinamani & Ors. [SLP (C) No. 6185/2020), after considering and examining the divergent views of the various Hon'ble High Courts, has held that the object and purpose for grant of annual increment is required to be considered. A Government servant is granted annual increment based on his good conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are given annually with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (one year) with good conduct. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that merely because the government servant has retired on the very next day, how can he be denied the annual increment, which he has earned and / or is entitled to for rendering the service efficiently in the preceding one year.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the order dated 26.03.2024 (Annexure-A/3) passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 557/2023 and OA No. 633/2023, operative part of the same is as follows:
"Accordingly, we direct the respondents in the both the OAs to grant one notional annual grade increment payable on 1st July/1st January to the applicants for the period from 1st July to 30th June/1st 4 OA No. 258/2024 January to 31st December of the respective year of their retirement, as the case may be, and to re-fix their pension and pensionary benefits accordingly, if the applicants are found otherwise eligible for grant of such annual grade increment, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the respondents in both the OAs are also directed to pay arrears to the applicants within a period of one month thereafter. However, the arrears shall be restricted to three years prior to filing of the respective Original Applications in the cases where the applicants have retired more than three years prior to filing of the OAs and from the date of retirement in the cases where the applicants have retired within the period of these restricted three years."
5. Shri Manu Bhargava, Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel appeared on advance instructions on behalf of the respondents. He further states that the respondent-department will consider the case of the applicant, in case, they are directed to do so.
6. Heard both sides and also perused various judgments.
7. The controversy involved in the present Original Application is that the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2020. After 6th Pay Commission, the Central Government fixed 1st July as the date of increment for all employees by amending Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and in view of the said amendment, the applicant was denied the benefit of last increment though he had completed a full one year in the service as on 30th June i.e. the date of retirement. It is the 5 OA No. 258/2024 case of the applicant that he has completed one year service between 1st July of the previous year and 30th June, but since the annual grade increment fell due on 01st July, the date on which he was not in service due to retirement from service on 30th June, the respondents have not allowed the benefit of one annual grade increment to him for the purpose of calculating their retirement / pensionary benefits.
8. This controversy arose before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of P. Ayyamperumal vs. The Registrar, C.A.T., Madras Bench & Ors., (WP No. 15732 of 2017), decided on 15th September, 2017 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has considered the similar controversy regarding grant of one notional annual grade increment which fell due on 1st July for the period (1st July to 30th June) but not allowed due to not in service on 1st July due to retirement on 30th June. The operative part of the order dated 15th September, 2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra), reads as under: -
"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 6 OA No. 258/2024 pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."
Against the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras dated 15.09.2017, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22283/2018 has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 23.07.2018 and further Review Petition (C) No. 1731/2019 has also been dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2019 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has attained finality.
9. In Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023 [SLP (C) No. 6185/2020), The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., decided on 11th April, 2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the divergent views taken by various Hon'ble High Courts on this issue and has held as under: -
"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 behavior 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."
10. In yet another Civil Appeal, [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4722 of 2021, Union of India & Anr. vs. M. Siddaraj, 7 OA No. 258/2024 decided on 19th May, 2023, while deciding number of connected Civil Appeals, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: -
"xxx The issue raised in these appeals is squarely covered by a judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No 2471 of 2023 decided on 11.04.2023 titled as Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and Others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Others (2023) SCC Online SC 401.
The issue being same, the present civil appeals also stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. xxx"
11. In Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2646/2020, Dharam Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors., and other connected matters, decided on 11.07.2023 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellants sought to distinguish the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. (supra) on the ground that Regulation 40 (1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997 is different from Rule 10 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 as also Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh (Pay Revision) Rules, 2009 and Rule 10 of Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (supra) has held as under: -
"We have gone through these rules and in our opinion, though these Rules are differently phrased, they have the same import, on the strength of which the Co-ordinate Bench had dismissed the petition of the employer. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders assailed in this set of petitions and these petitions shall stand dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also and disposed of.8 OA No. 258/2024
Civil Appeal No. 4349 of 2023 in SLP (C) No. 2646/2020 Leave granted.
The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order which is placed on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."
In Civil Appeal No. 4349 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2646/2020), decided on 11th July, 2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -
"xxx In such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and direct that the appellant may be given enhanced pension, if he is so entitled to, by giving him the benefit of his last increment before his superannuation but the enhanced amount shall be disbursed to him from the year 1st July, 2016. xxx"
12. This Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Kumar Arya & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. (OA No. 64/2022), vide its order dated 19.05.2023 has also dealt with this controversy at length and considered various authorities on the subject and has held as under: -
"9. Since the various Benches of this Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that the increment, which became due on 1st July of respective years of their retirement, needs to be released for the employees, who retired one day earlier thereto, the applicants herein cannot be denied such benefits.
10. In view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the respondents are directed to grant one notional annual grade increment payable on 1st July to all the applicants for the period from 1st July to 30th June for the respective years in which they have retired and to re- fix their pension and pensionary benefits accordingly, if the applicants are found otherwise eligible for grant of such annual grade increment, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this 9 OA No. 258/2024 order. Accordingly, the respondents are also directed to pay arrears to the applicants within a period of one month thereafter."
13. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the present controversy has been settled up to the Hon'ble Apex Court repeatedly and also distinction between Regulation 40 (1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997 and corresponding Regulations under different rules has also been dealt with and settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court holding that though these Rules are differently phrased, they have the same import. As such, we are of the considered view that the issue of grant of one annual increment which the employees earned on the last day of their services for rendering their services in the preceding one year from the date of retirement, are entitled to grant of one annual increment payable on 1st July.
14. With regard to the issue of arrears, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Lal, reported in (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 765, Civil Appeal No. 5151-5152 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP [C] Nos. 3820-3821 of 2008), dated August 13, 2008, has held that arrears should be restricted to three years prior to the filing of writ petition. The operative part of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Tarsem Lal (supra) reads as under: -
"5. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or 10 OA No. 258/2024 limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.
6. In this case, the delay of 16 years would affect the consequential claim for arrears. The High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to 16 years, and that too with interest. It ought to have restricted the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances."
15. In view of the observations and discussions made above, we direct the respondents to grant one notional annual grade increment payable on 1st July to the applicant, for the period from 1st July to 30th June and to re-fix his pension and pensionary benefits accordingly, if the applicant is found otherwise eligible for grant of such annual grade increment, within a period of three months from the date of 11 OA No. 258/2024 receipt of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the respondents are also directed to pay arrears to the applicant within a period of one month thereafter. However, the arrears shall be restricted to three years prior to filing of the Original Application in case the applicant has retired more than three years prior to filing of the OA and from the date of retirement in case the applicant has retired within the period of these restricted three years.
16. With these observations and directions, the Original Application is hereby disposed off at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi) Member (A) Member (J) /sg/