Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Sub-rule (a) runs as follows:-

(a) All duty in a post on a time-scale counts for increments in that time-

scale:

Provided that, for the purpose of arriving at the date of the next increment in that time-scale, the total of all such periods as do not count for increment in that time-scale, shall be added to the normal date of increment.

Sub-Rule (b) prescribes that

b) in case of Extra-Ordinary Leave, taken otherwise than on medical certificate, the period will not count for purposes of increments.

(VII) It requires no reiteration that it is settled law that decisions of the respondents are to be in harmony with the constitutional provisions of Articles 14 & 16 and the laws of the land. Further, respondents decisions invariably are not to be directed towards unauthorised ends of rejecting an acceptable request, but ought to be in rhythm with the purpose of bringing forth of a uniform date of granting increment. In addition, when an interpretation of the objective of the 6th / 7th CPC to fix a uniform date for grant of increment is to be made, it has to be necessarily broad based so that the purported objective is not defeated. In the instant case, there are two interpretations, one which is narrower denying increment on 1 st July though eligible but for becoming a pensioner and the other broader one supported by rules calling for grant of increment based on the one year service rendered to earn the same. Ignoring the broader interpretation, is for sure, was never the intent of the 6th/ 7th CPC recommendation in going in for a uniform date of grant of annual increment, subject to, of course, fulfilling other conditions to earn the increment other than fulfilling the proviso of rendering one year of service. Adopting the broader interpretation is the choice which the respondents should have chosen in regard to the dispute on hand as has been expressly made explicit in Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries (1940) AC 1014 as under:

The main aim of the mischief rule of interpretation is to determine the "mischief and defect" that the statute in question has set out to remedy, and what ruling would "suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy".

Tribunal taking support of the above legal axiom spoken of, has to exercise the power to remove the mischief in denying the increment legally due to the applicants and advance the remedy of granting it.

(VIII) Forget not that, there are provisions under FRSR 26 to defer the increment when an employee is on extraordinary leave for the purpose of study or training and if this be so, under the same analogy the applicants who have been otherwise eligible for annual increment can be considered for annual increment on the 1st day of retirement as an increment deferred by a day. Respondents submission is that the employees who go on extraordinary leave joining back duty after availing the leave whereas the applicants having retired from service have no scope to join duty. Therefore it cannot be said that the applicants have been discriminated vis-à-vis those who continue to be in service and in fact if an employee in service does not join duty after availing extraordinary leave no increment would be drawn. In this context, the aspect of paramount importance is as to whether the applicants rendered one year unblemished service to be eligible for grant of duty under the relevant rule. As applicants complied with this norm they are eligible and therefore the submission of the respondents that since they have no scope to rejoin duty and hence ineligible holds no water. Rules are to be uniform and should not be discriminative in nature. When a group of employees who are not on duty due to extraordinary leave are granted deferred increment, it does not stand to reason, as to why pensioners who are not on duty on the 1st day of retirement, which is the increment date, be granted the eligible annual increment, as deferred by a day. Discrimination is the antithesis to equality.

It requires no reiteration that the later judgment of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi on 13.1.2020 on the same issue holds the ground. It must be noted that the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi has rejected the contention that P.Ayyamperumal Judgment is in personam on which the respondents harped by stating that the nodal Ministry i.e DOPT has taken such a stand. Moreover, the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of A.P. in Principal Accountant General, AP & others v C. Subba Rao & others in 2005(2) ALD = 2005 (2) ALT 25 cited by the respondents to back their defence would not be relevant in view of the latest Judgment of the Hon Delhi court on 23.1.2020 referred to above and the dismissal of both the SLP (C) No.22008/2018 plus the Review Petition vide RP (C) No.1731/2019 filed thereupon against Ayyamperumal judgment in WP No.15732/2017 dt. 15.9.2017, by the Hon‟ble Apex Court on 23.7.2018 and 8.8.2019 respectively, for reasons expounded in para XVI. It is also pertinent to point out that when the C. Subba Rao judgment was delivered in 2005 by the Hon‟ble High Court of A.P. the rule for granting increment was the date of joining of the service/ date of promotion. The rule has been changed after the 6th CPC with the date of increment being taken as a uniform date of 1st July and as per CCS revised pay rules of 2008 after completion of 6 months of service in the grade/pay scale, one would become eligible for grant of an increment. Moreover, the concept of taking 50% of last pay drawn for granting of pension has been brought into vogue from 2006 onwards. The change in the rules subsequent to C. Subba Rao judgment have made it irrelevant.