Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Maroti Rajaram Mankar And Ors vs Accountant General on 17 January, 2024
} OA No 183/2023 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MUMBA! BENCH, CAMP AT NAGPUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.1183 OF 2023 Dated this Wednesday, the 17" day of January, 2024 CORAN : JUSTICE SHRI M.G.SEWLIKAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI RAJINDER KASHYAP, MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE) 1. Marot! Rajaram Mankar, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Retired, R/o B.N.83C, Dattau, Ramna Maroti Nagar, Nagpur 440 024. 2. Shriram Pralhad Bhelonde, Aged 70 years, Occ. Retired, Rio Bajrang Complex, Vaklipeth, Umred Road, Nagpur 440 024, Mob. 7262021485. 3. Raghunath Narayanrao Bahadurkar, aged about 73 years, Occ. Retired, R/o Opp. Dofle Hospital, Rukhmini Nagar, Amravati 444 S06. 4. Vijay Shankarrao Manapure, Aged about /4 years, Oec. Retired, R/o Sneh Nagar, Wardha Road, Nagpur 440 075. on Jayanat Dashrath Kotangale, Aged about 68 years, Oec. Retired, R/o Misal Layout, PO Jaripatka, Nagour 440 074. Laxmikant Sadashivrao Kulkarni, Aged about 67 years, Cicc. Retired, Rfo Atharva, H. No.1-11-79, Ganeshnagar Extension Marot! Mandir, Nanded 437 S05. oo s ie Ajaykumer Sumantrao Sathe, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Retired, R/o 44, Shakun Suman Ramai Nagar, Nari Road, PO Uppalwadi, Nagpur 28. 8 isan Ganpat Bhise, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Retired, Rio Bank Colony, Near Waman Nagar, Purna Road, Beside Talathi Office, Nanded 431 605. 9 Mohan Vasantreo Godse, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Retired, Rio Flat No.4, Ground Floor, Shriram Sankul Rayaker Nagar, Ohayni Road, Pune 471 041. OA No TL 83/2083 10. Sudhakar Aimaream Ghengare (Deceased), through his legal heir Smt. Mala Wed/o Sudhakar Ghengare, aged about 68 years, Occ, Household, Rio 152, Baiiprabhu Nagar, Near Fulwar School, Sehind Sarveshwar Temple, Ramnacar, Naeopur 440 010. - Applicants (By Advocate Ms. Kirti Satpute) Versus 1. Union of india, Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personne! and Training Establishment (Pay ~-- 1 Section), North Block, New Delhi 110 001. ho Office of the Comptroller and Auditor Generali of india, through Senior Administrative Officer/Staff Enttlement-l. 9, Deendayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi 110 124. Ss. The Accountant General (A&E) U1, Oppasite Police Commissioner Office, Civil Lines, Meharashtra, Nagpur 440 0071. ~ Respondents (Sy Advocate Shr RH. Khobragade) ORAL ORDER Per: Justice M.G.Sewlikar, Member (J)
We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants. @ The relief claimed in this application is notional increment on account of date of retirement being 30" June of different years. in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 11" April, 2023 in Cha Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 titled as The Directar (Admn. and NR) KPTCL & Others Vs. C.P.Mundinamani! & Others, the Apex Court Reid thus:
"8. The short question which is posed for the consideration of this Cour is whether an employee who has earned the annual increment is eniied to the same despite OA No 1183/2023 fee the fact that he has retired on the very next day of eaming the incrernent?
6&1. In the present case, the relevant provision is Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations which reads as under: -
"Drawals and postponements of increments .
40(1). An increment accrues fram the day following that on which it is earned. An increment that has accrued shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment may be withheld from an employee by the competent authority, if his conduct has not been good, or his work has not been satisfactory, In ordering the withholding of an increment, the withholding authority shall state the period for which # is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future Increments."
6.2. {tis the case on behalf of the appellants that the ward used in Regulation 40(1) is that an increment accrues from the day following that on which # Is earned and in the present case the increment accrued on the day when they retired and therefore, on that day they were not in service and therefore, not entitled to the annual increment which they might have earned one day earier [tis also the case on behalf of the appellants that as the increment is in the form of incentive and therefore, when the employees are not in service there is no question of granting them any annual increment which as such is in the form of incentive.
8.3. Atthis stage, fis required fo be noted that there are divergent views of various High Courts on the issue invelved. The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Gourt, the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the Kerala High Coun have taken a contrary view and nave taken the view canvassed on behalf of the appellants. On the other hand, the Madras High Court in the case of P Ayyamperumal (supra): the Delhi high Court in the case of Gopal Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Vit Fettion (SO) No. (0509/2019 decided on 23.01.2020) the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vilay Singh and Ors. Vs.
4. OA No.1 E83/2023 Union of India and Grs. @Vrit A No. 13299/2020 decided on 29.06.2021) the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal Vs. State of Odisha and Anr. (Writ Petition No. 17715/2020 decided on 30.07.2021), and the Gularat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Yakhatsinh Udesinh Songara (Letters Patent Appeal No. 868/202 1) have taken a divergent view than the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and have taken the view that once an employee has earned the increment on completing one year service he cannot be denied the benefit of such annual increment on his attaining the age of superannuation and/or the day of retirement on the very next day.
6.4. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that the annual increment is in the form of incentive and to encourage an employee fo perform well and therefore, once fhe is not in service, there is no question of orant of annual increment is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. In a given case, may happen that the employee sarns the increment three days before his date of superannuation and therefore, even according to the Regulation 40(1) increment is accrued on the next day in that case also such an employee would not have one year service thereafier. [t is to be noted thal increment scale. Therefore, the aforesaid submission is not to be accepted.
6.5. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that as the increment has accrued on the next day on which ff is earned and therefore, even in a case where an employee fas earned the increment one day prior to his retirement but he is not in service the day on which the increment is accrued is concerned, while considering the aforesaid issue, the object and purpose of grant of annual increment is required to be considered. A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of OA No 1P83/2023 ost punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is eamed for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale, he Is entitled fo the annual increment and i can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with geod conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entifed to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (one year) with good conduct efficiently. 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 with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding one year. In the case of Gopal Singh (supra) in paragraphs 20, 23 and 24, the Delhi High Court has observed and held as under: -
"Payment of salary and increment to a central government servant is regulated by the provisions of FR.. CSR and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Pay defined in F.R. 9(21) means the amount drawn monthly by a central government servant and includes the increment A plain composite reading of applicable provisions leaves no ambiguity that annual increment is given fo a ae government servant to enable him to discharge duties of the post and that pay and allowances are also attached to the post. Article 43 of the CSR defines progressive appointment fo mean an appointment wherein the pay is progressive, subject to good behaviour of an officer. ft connotes that pay rises, by periodical increments from a minimum to a maximum. The Increment in case of progressive appointment is specified in Articie 151 of the CSR to mean that Increment accrues from the date following that on which {ft is earned. The scheme, taken cumulatively, clearly suggests that appointment of a central government servant is a progressive appointment and periodical increment in pay from a minimum to maximum is part of the pay structure. Article 151 of CSR contemplates that increment accrues fram the day following which itis earned. This Increment ig nof a matter of course but is dependent upon good conduct of the central government servant. It is, therefore, apparent that central government employee earns increment on the basis of his good conduct for specified period Le. a year in case of annual increment. Increment in pay is thus an integral part of progressive appointment and accrues from the day following which it is earned."
"Annual increment though is attached to the pest & becomes payable on a day following which if Is earned but the day on which increment accrues of becomes oayable is not concusive or determinative. in the statutory scheme governing progressive appointment increment becomes due for the services rendered over a year by the government servant subject to his good behaviour. The pay of a central government servant rises, by periodical increments, from a minimum to the maximum in the prescribed scale. 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 isolation of the purpose it serves the fixation of day succeeding the date of entitlement has no intelligible differentia nor any object is to be achieved by it. The central government servant retiring on 30th June has already completed a year of service and the increment has been earned provided his conduct was good. [t would thus be wholly arbitrary if the increment earned by the central government employee on the basis of his good conduct for a year is denied only on the ground that he was nat in employment on the succeeding day when increment became payable."
"in the case of a government servant retiring on 30th of dune the next day on which increment falls duefbecomes payable looses significance and must give way fo the right of the government 6 GA No, ]1B3/2025 i OA No 1183/2023 servant fo receive increment due to satisfactory services of a year so that the scheme is not construed in a manner that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined in Aricle 14 of the Constitution of India. The scherne for payment of increment would have to be read as whole anc one part of Article 151 of CSR cannot be read in isolation so as fo frustrate the other part particularly - when the other part creates righ{ In the central government servant to receive increment. This would ensure that scheme of progressive appointment remains intact and the rights earned by a government servant remains protected and are not denied due te a fortuitous circumstance."
6.5. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra) while dealing with the same issue has observed and held in paragraph 24 as under: -
"94 Law is settled that where entitlement to receive a benefit crystallises in law its denial would be arbitrary unless it is for a valid reason. The only reason for denying benefit of increment, culled out fram the scheme is that the central government servant is not holding the gost on the day when the increment becomes payable. This cannot be a valid ground for denying increment since the day following the date on which increment is eamed only serves the purpose of ensuring completion of a year's service with good conduct and no other purpose can be culled aut for i. The concept of day following which the increment is earned has otherwise no purpose to achieve. In isolation of the purpase it serves the fixation of day succeeding the date of entitlement has no intelligible differentia nor any object is to be achieved by & The central government servant retiring on 30th June has already completed a year of service and the increment has been earned provided his conduct was good. It would thus be wholly arbitrary if the increrneant earned by the central government employee on the basis of his good conduct for a year is denied only en the ground that he was net in 8 OA No 1183/2025 employment on the succeeding day when increment became oayable. In the case of a government servant retiring on 30th of June the next day on which increment falls due/becomes payable looses significance and must give way to the right of the government servant to receive increment due to satisfactory services of a year so that the scheme is not construed in a manner that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined in Article 74 of the Constitution of India. The scheme for payment of Increment would have to be read as whole and one part of Article 181 of GSR cannat be read in isolation so as to frustrate the other part particularly when the other part creates right in the central government servant to receive increment. This would ensure that scheme of progressive appointment remains intact and the fights earned by a government servant remains protected and are not denied due to a fortuitous circumstance."
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 specified period of service with good conduct and efficiently in the last preceding year It would be ounishing 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 duly efficiently. Any interoretation 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 crystelises when the government servant completes requisite jength 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 Gepal 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. 1411/2020 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).
7. th 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 thelr 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 fo be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
LA. No. 149091/2022 stands disposed of in terms of the above." (emphasis supplied)
2) OA No, 1838/2023 10 OA No. 1183/2023 & [n view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the applicants aré enttied fo notional increment. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicants have made representations which are not yet decided by the respondents. He, therefore, submits that the respondents be directed to decide the representations.
4. We do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the applicants are entitled to notional increment as their date of retirernent are 30" June of different years.
&. In view of the above, respondents are directed to grant notional _ increment to the applicants from the next date of his retirement within & period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6. Accordingly, the OA stands disposed of No costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice M.G.Sewlikar) Member (A) Member ()