Hony Flt Lt Rajesh Sharma vs UOI & Others on 4 August 2025

O R D E R

04.08.2025

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to grant one annual increment on the payment of the Applicant on completion of his service from 01.01.2022 to 31.12.2022 and, accordingly, re-fix his pension by issuing a Corrigendum PPO and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 12%.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Air Force on 21.08.1985. Due to his dedication and loyalty to the organization, he rose to the rank of Master Warrant Officer (MWO) and in the final year of superannuation, he was conferred with the honorary rank of Flying Officer (HFO) and Flying Lieutenant (HFL) on 26.01.2022 and

15.08.2022 respectively and superannuated from Service on 31.12.2022 for which he has been granted Service Pension for life wef 01.01.2023. The Applicant submits that he has completed one year service from 01.01.2022 to 31.12.2022, however, at the time of retirement, he has not been granted annual increment. In support of his claim, the Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No 2471/2023, arising out of SLP (C) 6185/2020 in case titled The Director (Admn & HR) KPTCL & Ors Vs Mundinamani & Ors and submitted that he is eligible for grant of annual increment on 01.01.2023 along with consequential benefits. During the course of arguments, in support of his claim, the Applicant also placed reliance on Hon’ble AFT (PB), New Delhi Order dt 29.11.2024 in OA No 4968/2024 in the case of MWO (HFL) Rohtash Singh (Retd) Vs UOI & Ors.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement. While not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted that as per 7th CPC, uniform date for granting annual increment is 01st Jan/01st Jul and the personnel completing six months and above regular service in the revised pay structure as on 01st Jan/ 01st July were eligible for grant of annual increment. The Applicant was promoted to the rank of HFO and HFL on 26.01.2022 and 15.08.2022 respectively. Since his Basic Pay was revised wef 15.08.2022 on his promotion to the rank of HFL and he had not completed six months regular service until his discharge from Service on 31.12.2022, he is not eligible for grant of annual increment on 01.01.2024. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

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. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was granted Honorary rank of Flying Officer (HFO) and Flying Lieutenant (HFL) on 26.01.2022 and 15.08.2022 respectively. The Applicant has prayed for grant on one increment on completion of one year for the period from 01.01.2022 to 31.12.2022. On the other hand, the Respondents have rejected the grant of one increment on 01.01.2023 on notional basis on the grounds that the Applicant was promoted to the honorary rank of Flying Lieutenant (HFL) on 15.08.2022 and has not completed six months of continuous service before his superannuation on 31.12.2022. Moreover, as it is a case for grant of notional increment, the basic premise on which such a benefit has been granted is that since the individual has completed one full year of service for grant of notional increment, which could not be granted to him as he was not in service on the date of increment, ie., 1st January or 1st July, as the case may be, having retired a day earlier. This dispensation cannot be brought down to a mere 4 months to grant the benefit of one notional increment. In this regard, 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. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to remit the case back to the Respondents to consider the case once again in granting one notional increment to the applicant post his discharge from service even when had not served continuously for a period of one year after his pay had been re-fixed on promotion to the rank of Honorary Flying Lieutenant, as the Hon’ble Apex Court, as far as the qualifying period of one year for earning an Increment on notional basis after retirement/ discharge from service of an individual, was quite explicit. The outcome of the case may be intimated to the applicant within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

9. The OA is disposed off accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

10. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-