Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
O P Singh vs Revenue on 1 November, 2023
1
O.A.No. 203/00668/2023
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTINGS: BILASPUR
Original Application No.203/00668/2023
Jabalpur, this Wednesday, the 01st day of November, 2023
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. O.P. Singh S/o Late S.N. Singh, aged about 62 years, Retired as
superintendent CGST R/o 1369/60 Mathpuraina, Chourasiya Colony
Raipur Dist Raipur (CG) 492013
2. Sanapala Surya Babu S/o Late Sanapala Krishna Murthy, Retired
as Superintendent (Audit) aged about 61 years R/o House NO.107
Amaldih Raipur Distt-Raipur (CG) 492006
3. Tapan Kumar Nath S/o Late Narayan Chandra Nath, aged about
61 years, retired as Superintendent from CGST & Central Excise
Audit Commissionerate, R/o House No.50/3058 Rani Durgawati
Ward, Mahavir Nagar, PO Ravigram Distt: Raipur (CG) 492006
4. Rajshekhar Chaube S/o Late Rohini Kumar Chaube aged about
63 years, retired as Assistant Commissioner from CGST & Central
Excise Audit Commissionerate R/o 295/A Rohini Puram Raipur (CG)
492013
5. Anil Kumar Patel S/o Shri Shyam Lal Patel aged about 62 years
Retired as Superintendent from CGST & Central Excise Audit R/o K-
5 Shatabdi Nagar Telibandha Raipur (CG) 496006
6. M.M. Khan S/o Abdul Hai Khan aged about 63 years retired as
Superintendent R/o House No.411/16 Opposite House No.C-44
Kurla Road, Karmachari Nagar, Distt-Durg (CG) 491001
7. R.C. Sharma, S/o Shri N.S. Sharma aged about 64 years Retired
as Superintendent CGST R/o Plot No.19 Street No.17 Pragati Nagar
Risali Bhilai Distt-Durg CG 490020
8. Shrikant Tiwari S/o Late Shri Hari Prasad Tiwari Aged about 62
years Retired as Assistant Commissioner from CGST & Central
Page 1 of 5
2
O.A.No. 203/00668/2023
Excise Commissionerate R/o Deshmukh Bada Opposite Nirankari
Furnitures Station Road, Durg (CG) 491001
9. Sushil Yadav S/o Shri S.S. Yadav Aged about 71 years retired as
Deputy Commissioner R/o New Adarsh Nagar Zone I Street 3 Durg
Distt. Durg (CG) 491001
10. Smt. Sadhana Suresh Chavan, W/o Late Suresh Chavan
Retired as Superintendent CGST aged about 60 years R/o Block-15
16-A Nehru Nagar E Bhilai Distt Durgd (CG) 490020
11. Subhash Chand Agrawal S/o Late Shri J.P. Agrawal Aged about
61 years, retired as Superintendent CGST & Central Excise Raipur
Commissionerate R/o B-103 Omshri King's Court VIP Estate
Shankar Nagar Raipur (CG) 492007 -Applicants
(By Advocate -Shri A.V. Shridhar)
Versus
1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, North Block New Delhi 110001
2. The Chairman Central Board of Excise and Customs
North Block New Delhi 110001
3. Secretary Department of Expenditure Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue North Block New Delhi 110001
4. Chief Commissioner, Central GST and Excise Bhopal
Zone 178 Bhagya Bhawan Zone II Bhopal (MP) 462011
5. Principal Commissioner, Central GST and Excise Central
Excise Builidng Dhamtari Rd Tikrapara Raipur Chhattisgarh
492001
6. Commissioner Central Tax and Central Excise Audit
Commissionerate Central Excise Building Dhamtari Rd,
Tikrapara Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 - Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri Palash Tiwari)
(Date of reserving the order:-18.09.2023)
Page 2 of 5
3
O.A.No. 203/00668/2023
ORDER
By Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM;
In this Original Application, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether an employee, who retired on 30th June of a year is entitled to be extended the benefit of increment that falls due on 1st July.
2. The applicants in this case have retired on 30th June from various posts. They are aggrieved that they have not been granted the benefit of increment, which was otherwise due to them, only on the ground that by the time the increment became due, they were not in service.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the similar issue has already been decided by this Tribunal in bunch of cases filed in O.As No.200/156/2015 and other connected O.As.
4. We find that the issue regarding grant of one annual increment due on completion of one year service before attaining the age of superannuation has now attained finality in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 (@SLP(C) No.6185/2020) decided on 11.04.2023 in the case of The Director (Admn. Page 3 of 5 4
O.A.No. 203/00668/2023 and HR) KPTCL & others vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors, wherein it has been held as under:
"6.7 .......... As observed hereinabove, to interpret Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations in the manner in which the appellants have understood and/or interpreted would lead to arbitrariness and denying a government servant the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned while rendering 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 Page 4 of 5 5 O.A.No. 203/00668/2023 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).
5. Since the issue involved in this Original Application 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. Accordingly, this Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of one notional increment to the applicants due on 1st July with all consequential benefits. Let the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
kg/-
Page 5 of 5