Ex Sub Mahipal Singh vs UOI & Others on 26 November 2025

O R D E R

26.11.2025

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 annual increment on 01.01.2024 and accordingly, grant consequential pension and pensionary benefits and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 12% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 27.12.1993 and after rendering more than 30 years of service, he was discharged from Service on 31.12.2023. After implementation of 6th CPC wef 01.01.2006, it has been decided that 1st January/ 1st July of each year would be the uniform date for grant of grant annual increment to all Central Government employees. The Applicant was discharged from service on 31.12.2023 and, hence, on completion of one full year from

01.01.2023 to 31.12.2023, he was due to get annual increment on 01.01.2024. However, the Respondents have not granted the annual increment to the Applicant on the grounds that he was not in service as on 01.01.2024. The Applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court judgment dt 15.09.2017 in WP No 15732/2017 in the case of P Ayyamperumal Vs UOI & Ors. He further submits that the SLP filed by the Union of India against the judgment was also rejected by Hon’ble Supreme Court and, hence, the judgment in the case of Ayyamperumal (Supra) has attained finality and the Applicant is eligible for grant of annual increment on 01.01.2024. The Applicant has also placed reliance on this Tribunal Order dt 31.05.2022 in OA No 358/2019 in the case of Brig Dinesh Lalchandani (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 IHQ of MoD (Army) vide their letter No C/90028/Dirn/Inf-9 dt 06.12.2023 have submitted that similar type of cases processed for Govt Sanction/ directions have been returned by the Competent Authority with the remarks that the matter is presently under examination in consultation with D/o Expenditure and that TRIPAS has also taken up a case in this regard with MoD. PIFA (Q&M) in many cases have not given concurrence and advised to take up the case with MoD. Therefore, all such similar cases have been requested by AG/PS-6(B) to be kept pending till further order/directions of DoPT/MoD.

4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. Perusal of Final Settlement of Account for the month of 12/2023 reveals that the next date of increment of the Applicant was 01.01.2024 (Annexure A/1).

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 discharged from Service on 31.12.2023. The Applicant has prayed for grant of one increment on completion of one year for the period from 01.01.2023 to 31.12.2023. 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., 01.01.2024, having retired a day earlier. 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. Subsequent to aforesaid judgments, Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) vide their letter No 19/116/2024-Pers.Pol (Pay)(Pt) dt 20.05.2025 have issued instructions

on grant of notional increment, the relevant paragraphs of which reads as under:- “3. Hon’ble Supreme Court has subsequently disposed of MA No 2400/2024 filed by M/o Railways and other petitions vide Order dt 20.02.2025 while issuing the following final directions in the matter:- (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 30.04.2023 (erroneously mentioned as 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 filed an application for intervention/ impleadment/writ petition/ original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/Supreme Court, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable for the period of three years prior to the month in which the application for intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application was filed.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided that the direction referred at Para 3(d) above will not apply to the retired government employee who filed a writ petition/ original application or an application for intervention before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Court/Supreme Court after the judgment in “Union of India & Anr Vs M. Siddaraj”, as in such cases directions referred in Para 3(a) will apply.”

9. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that as per FSA 12/2023, the next date of increment of the Applicant was 01.01.2024, we direct the Respondents to decide the case for grant of annual increment wef 01.01.2024, subject to qualifying period of one full year with satisfactory work and good conduct in terms of aforesaid judgments and subsequent instructions issued vide Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) letter No 19/116/2024-Pers.Pol (Pay)(Pt) dt 20.05.2025 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The outcome of the case shall be intimated to the applicant.

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

11. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-