Ex Sigmn Manraj Dhaker vs UOI & Others on 27 November 2025

O R D E R

27.11.2025

1. By way of these Applications under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicants have filed these OAs, praying to direct the Respondents to grant one Notional Increment due from the date of their respective date of discharge from Service and release pension and pensionay benefits accordingly. The above mentioned Original Applications have been clubbed together being similar in nature.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicants are that, the Applicants were enrolled in the Army and were discharged from service with varying number of years on 30th June and 31st December of years 2023 and 2021 respectively. Although they have completed one year service prior to their discharge from service after receiving the last increment, the same was not granted by the Respondents on the ground that the applicants were not in service on the date it was due, ie; 1st July of the respective year and 1st January of the ensuing year respectively.

3. The Respondents have filed Reply Statement and have submitted that the Applicant in OA No 36/2024, was granted annual increment on 01.01.2023 and the next date of increment was 01.01.2024, however, the Applicant was discharged from Service on 30.06.2023, ie., after six month of grant of last increment on 01.01.2023. Further, the Applicant in OA No 17/2024, was granted last annual increment 01.07.2021 and his next date of increment was due on 01.07.2022, however, in the meantime, after completion of only six months from the last date of increment on 01.07.2021, he was discharged from Service on 31.12.2021. Since both the Applicants were discharged from service before completion of one full year of service after getting last increments, they are not eligible for grant of notional increment and consequential pension and pensionary benefits. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OAs are devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed before us.

5. The issue in question stands settled by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of P Ayyamperumal Vs The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors, in WP No 15732 of 2017, decided on 15/9/2017, which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment dated 23/7/2018 in SLP (Civil) Diary No 22283/2018. Relevant Extract of Order dated 15/9/2017 of Hon’ble Madras High Court is reproduced below :- “7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30/6/2013, but the increment fell due on 01/7/2013, 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 21/3/2017 is quashed. The Petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01/7/2012 30/6/2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01/7/2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs” .

6. We consider it essential to rely on order dt 19.05.2023 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No 4722/2021 in the case of UOI & Anr Vs M. Siddaraj, which was further modified by Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 06.09.2024 in MA Dy No 2400/2024 filed in SLP(C) No 4722/2021 which reads as under:- “(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid.

(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be paid.

(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the appellate court.

(d) In case any retired employee has filed any application for intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable from the month in which the application for intervention/impleadment was filed.”

7. Further, relevant extract of Judgment dated 11/4/2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 2471 of 2023 (SLP (C) No 6185/2020) in the case of The Director (Admn & HR) KPTCL Vs CP Mundinamani reads as follows :-

”x x x xx

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 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 i.e. 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.” (para 23) “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 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 crystalizes when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day.

“7. In view of the above and for 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 service 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”.

8. In the present both OAs, since the Applicants have not completed one full year of service after grant of last increments, they are not eligible for grant of notional increment after their discharge from service. The OAs are bereft of merit and, hence, are dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

9. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-