Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Madhuri Pradyumna Garge vs Central Railway on 4 July, 2024
1 _ OA No.454/2024 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI. ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 454/2024 Date of Decision:4™ July ,2024 CORAM: Justice M.G, Sewlikar, Member (J) . Shri Krishna, Member (A) 1. Mrs Madhuri Pradyumna Garge. 9226556567 Retd PS II TM W/NK, Central Railway Nasik Road, PIN- 422101, R/O Astavinayak Residency, Chintamani, Flat No.14,. Behind Passport Office, Nasik Road-422101 © 2. Shri Ashok Raghunath Patil Retd MCM 9881386515 - TMW/NK, Central Railway Nasik -422101 Indiranagar At Po Warud, Taluka Sindkheda, Dist Dhule-425404 3. Mr. Tukaram Kondaji Jadhav Retd SSE 9421566349 TMW/NK, Central Railway Nasik Road, Row House No. ll, Mhada Colony Samangao Road near gov. Polytechnic Nasik Road -422101 4. Shri Phalwinder Singh Dhillon, Retd MCM 9225834125 TMW/NK Central Railway Nasik Road-422101 Suryalok society, Kamatwada Nasik ~422009 5. Shri A Murali, S/O Venkateswrarao -Retd MCM 94038554995, Chief Workshop Manager's office TMW/NK, Central Railway Nasik | Road, Shri Chaya. Sivasakthi Nagar. Jail Road Nasik Road- 422101 6. Shri Namdeo Eknath Bagade Retd MCM 9767463320 TMW/NK, Central Railway Nasik Road, B2, Navjeevan Housing Society, Anand Road Near Vini Park, Deolali Camp, Nasik -422401 7. Shri Bapu Gangaram Wankhade Retd MCM 9420828462 TM W/NK Central Railway Nasik Road, R/O Ganadhish Banglow, Plot No. 26 A, Vidhate (Khode) Nagar, Shri. 2 | OA No.454/2024 Ravishankar Marg, Nasik-422011 8. Shri Balasaheb Budho Tayade Retd SSE 9421609071 TMW/NK, Central Railway Nasik Road, R/O 15 -Kalpataru Gosavi Nagar, Canal Road, Jail Road, Nashik Maharashtra-422101, Email- [email protected] 9. Shri Sitaram Shankar Pawar, Retd MCM 9890378122, Adress Flat NO. 2 Wing A, Om Residency,Hind Shakti Nagar Pawar Wadi, Jail Road, Nasik -422101 10. Shri Hiraman Pandurang Joshi, Retd MCM - 9422762916, TMW/NK, Central Railway Nasik Road, R/O Pandurang Niwas Plot No. 28, Mangalwadi Old Gangapur . Naka, Gangapur Road Nasik -420005 ll. Shri Vakeel Gurunath Rac, Retd MCM 07841033503 TMW/NK, Central Railway Nasik Road, C/O B.B. Tayade Gosavi Nagar,Canal Road, Jail Road, Nasik Road-422101 Email- [email protected] 12. Shri. Kishor Manohar Joshi, Retd MCM 9421508714 Traction Machine Workshop TM W/NK, Central Railway Nasik Road, R/O Shivneri Co-operative Society, NO. 1 R.J.C. Bitaco Girls High School, Mitrano Road, Jail Road, Nasik Road -422101 13. Shri Dinkar Karbhari Landbale Retd MCM 7709304034 R/O Subhash Nagar (Thokalwadi), Post Vinchur, Taluka- Niphad Near Lonyai Mata Road, District-Nasik - 422305 14. Shri Vishwanath Walu Mankar Retd MCM 7798520416 TMW/NK Central Railway Nasik -Road-422101 At Post Mankar Mala, Samangaon Road, Chadegaon,. Kotamgaon, Nasik, Maharashtra -422105 15. Shri Shivbalak Ram Retd Tech 1 9096412919 TMW/NK Central Railway Nasik Road-422101 R/O Gorewadi Shastrinagar, Nasik road-422101 16. Shri. Satish Laxman Ahirrao Retd SSE 9923407919 TMW/NK Central Railway Nasik Road -422101 Yashoda Sadan Anagha. Society, Navale colony, Nasik Road 3 OA No.454/2024 ~422101 17. Shri. Ramdas Baju Borse Retd Tech.1 8308970299 TMW/NK Central Railway Nasik Road 422101, Regal Row House, Siddhi Nagar, Jail Road, Pawarwadi, Nasik, PO Nasik Road-422101 18. Shri. Shivaji Kashinath Wagh, Retd Tech.1 9890493334 TMW/NK Central Railway Nasik Road 422101 R/O Govind Sankul, Jail Road, Pawarwadi Nasik Road ~422101 19. Shri.Arun Pandurang Rane Retd Tech 19680216931 TMW /NK Central 'Railway Nasik Road 422101 | R/O Uadaydeep Society, Near Raj Rajeshwari Mangal _ Karyalay, ---- Panchak Nasik Road~422101 20. Shri. Uttam Bapurao "Pawar, Retd MCM 8605831649 TMW/NK Central Railway Nasik Road 422101 -- R/O Balaji Nagar, More Mala, Panchak Jail Road, Nasik Road- 422101 21. Shri. Laxman. Raghoji Wadhawe Retd Tech. 1. 9881834755 TMW/NK Central Railway Nasik Road - 422101 _ R/O, Flat No. -14, Soham Society Mangalmurti Nagar, Jail Road, Nasik Road -422101. 22, Shri. Anant Ratan | Nikam Retd MCM 9527932839 TMW/NK Central Railway Nasik Road - 422101 R/o Room No. 4, Keru Patil. Nagar, Jail Road, Nasik Road -422101 7 23. Shri. Suresh Yadav Bagule Retd "MCM 8275111681 TMW/NK Central Railway Nasik Road -422101 R/O Madhay _ Row House, 'No.11 Fadol Mala, Ambad Shivar, . Nasik 422010 24. Shri. Balchand Brijlal Shakya Retd MCM 9970436080 _ TMW/NK Central - Railway. Nasik Road -422101 R/O Plot. No. 31, say Bhavani Road, Nasik Road 422101 (295. Shri. Suresh Kumar Malviya Retd MCM 9423913118 TMW/NK Central Railway Nasik Road - 422101 R/O Plot 4 OA No.454/2024 No. 27, Shahane Mala, Jay Bhavani Road, Nasik Road, Nasik 422101 26. Shri.Champati Namdeo Paikrao Retd MCM 9922590165 TMW/NK Central Railway Nasik Road, - 422101 R/O Shastri Nagar, Gorewadi Nasik Road 422101 . ~Applicants (By Advocate Mr. S$ K Tripathi) Versus 1. Union Of India, The General Manager, Central Railways (Through) Principal Chief Personnel officer, Central Railways 2nd Floor GM _ office Building Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus Mumbai -4000001 2. The Principal Chief Electrical Engineer, 5th floor. Above Parcel office building Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, Mumbai-~400001 3. The Chief Workshop ManagerTraction Machine Workshop Central Railways Nashik Nashik Road, Distt: Nashik -422101. _ "Respondents (By Advocate Mr. Sachin Patel) ORDER (Oral) Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
We have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the respondents. |
2. | "Learned counsel for 'the applicants submits that the applicants are claiming notional increment /on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The Director (Admn. And LTR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. CP Mundinamani & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 decided on Li" April, 5. -- OA No.454/2024 2023. In the case of The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors, Vs. CP Mundinamani (supra), Supreme Court had directed the © Central Government to grant notional increment to all those employees to have put in service of one year from 1° July of the relevant year to 30% June of the next year. The Supreme Court has made the following observations:
"6. The short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is whether an employee who has earned the annual increment is entitled to the same despite the fact that he has retired on the very next day of earning the increment?
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 from 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 empioyee 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 it is withheld, _ and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments."
6.2. It is the case on behalf of the appellants that the word used in Regulation 40(1) is that an increment accrues from the day following that on which it 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 earlier. it is also the case on behalf of the 6 OA No.454/2024 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. .
6.3. At this stage, it is required to be noted that there are divergent views of various High Courts on the issue involved. The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the Kerala High Court have taken a contrary view and have 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. (Writ Petition (C) No. 10509/2019 decided on 23.01.2020); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ 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 Viadhya 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 Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (Letters Patent Appeal No. 868/2021) 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 compieting 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 to perform well and therefore, once -he js not in service, there is no question of grant of annual increment is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. In a given case, it may happen that the employee earns 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 thereafter. It is to be noted that increment is earned on one year past service rendered in a time scale. Therefore, the 7 QA No.454/2024 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 it is earned and therefore, even in a case where an employee has 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 punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned 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 to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled 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 F.R., 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 to a 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 to mean an appointment wherein the pay is progressive, subject g OA No.454/2024 to good behaviour of an officer. It connotes that pay rises, by periodical increments from a minimum to a maximum. The increment in case of progressive appointment is specified in Article 151 of the CSR to mean that increment accrues from the date following that on which it 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 from the day following which it is earned. This increment is not 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 ie. 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 post & becomes payable on a day following which it is earned but the day on which increment accrues or becomes payable is not conclusive or determinative. 'in the siatutory 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. It would thus be wholly arbitrary if the
66. The Allahabad Hi Singh (supra) while 9 OA No.454/2024 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 not in | employment on the succeeding day when increment became payable." . | _ '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 14 of the Constitution of India. The scheme for payment of increment would have to be read as whole and one part of Article 151 of CSR cannot 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 rights earned by a government servant remains protected and are not denied due to a fortuitous circumstance."
gh Court in the case of. Nand Vijay observed and held in Paragraph 24 as under: -
"24. Law is settled that where entitlement to receive 4 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 from the scheme is that the central government servant is not holding. the post 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 earned only serves the purpose of ensuring completion of.a year's service with good conduct and no other purpose can be culled out for it. The concept of day following which the increment is earned has otherwise no Purpose to achieve. In isolation of the purpose it serves the fixation of day Succeeding the date of entitlement has no intelligible dealing with: the same issue has 10 OA No.454/2024 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. It 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 not in employment on the succeeding day when increment became payable. 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 14 of the Constitution of India. The scheme for payment of increment would have to be read as whole and one part of Article 151 of CSR cannot 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 rights 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 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. {f the interpretation as suggested on behalf of the appellants and the view taken by 11 | OA No.454/2024 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 entitied 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).
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.
12 OA No.454/2024LA. No. 149091/2022 stands disposed of in terms of the above." (emphasis supplied)
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicants are not entitled to the arrears ners from the date of his retirements. in terms of judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr vs Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 scc 648. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is enttied to the arrears from the date of retirement.
4, The applicant is entitled to arrears for preceding three years in terms of judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Yarsem Singh (supra). Accordingly, OA is allowed. Respondents shall grant notional increment to the applicant on the next date of his retirement. Applicant is entitled to arrears for three years preceding the date of application.
Pending MAs, if any, Stand closed. No costs.
(Shri Krishna). (Justide M.G. Sewlikar) | Member (A) Member (}) nk.