Raj kumar vs DEFENCE on 5 November 2026

O R D E R

Heard Shri Sachin Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents at the admission stage and with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the instant Original Application is being heard and decided finally at this stage itself.

02. The instant Original Application, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has been filed by applicants, seeking following reliefs: “8.1 This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the applicant one notional increment for the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

period from 01.07.2020 to 30.06.2021 for purposes of pensionary benefits and accordingly, re-fix his pension and other pensionary benefits and pay the arrears along admissible interest thereupon. 8.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant. 8.3 To award the cost of the Original Application to the applicant.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has retired on 30th June of 2021 and one increment falling due on the very next date i.e. 01st July of the relevant year was not granted to him. He also placed reliance on catena of judgments pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court followed by Hon’ble High Court as well as various Tribunals and submitted that the present case may also be decided by this Tribunal in the light of the aforesaid judgments/orders.

4. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the controversy involved in the present Original Application stands settled by authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that, subject to the applicant fulfilling the requisite eligibility conditions, including completion of qualifying service with satisfactory conduct, the benefit of one notional increment shall be extended to him in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the clarificatory Office Memorandum dated 14.10.2024 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training.

5. As far as the question of granting the notional increment is concerned, the law on the point has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., reported in (2023) SCC online S.C. 401 (Civil Appeal No.(s) 2471/2023 decided on 11.04.2023). The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the divergent views of different Hon’ble High Courts on the issue:- “Whether an employee who has earned the annual increment is entitled to the same despite the facts that he has retired on the very next day of earning the increment?”

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the matter and importance of increment and observed that denying the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned while rendering a specified period of service with good conduct and efficiency in the last preceding year, would be punishing a person for no fault. The PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

Hon’ble Supreme Court did not approve the contrary view taken by Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court and the view of Kerala and Himachal Pradesh, High Courts and approved the view of Madras, Allahabad, M.P., Orissa, and Gujrat High Courts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the divergent views of different Hon’ble High Courts on the issue and in para 6.7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “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. If the interpretation as suggested on behalf of the appellants and the view taken by 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 entitled 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).” PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

7. Thereafter, in Special Leave Petition (c) No. 4722/2021 “Union of Indian and Others Vs. M. Siddaraj” a Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400/2024 was filed in which the Hon’ble Apex Court by taking into consideration the date of applicability of the judgment dated 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023 in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. By an interim order dated 06.09.2024 has considered the application of Union of India and observed 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. “

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Diary No. 2400 of 2024 (Union of India & Anr. vs. M. Siddaraj), on 20.02.2025, has once again considered the matter and made the following observations:- “We are inclined to dispose of the present miscellaneous applications directing that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the order dated 06.09.2024 will be treated as final directions. We are, however, of the opinion that Clause (d) of the order dated 06.09.2024 requires modification which shall now read as under:- “(d) In case any retired employee filed an application for intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this 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. Further, clause (d) 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 Courts/this Court after the judgment in “Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj”, as in such cases, clause (a) will apply.”

9. Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid view of the Supreme Court, the matter which was filed on and after 01.05.2023 will be applicable for one notional increment as per para (a) of order dated PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

06.09.2024 of the aforesaid judgment. The benefit of enhanced pension, as per the judgment and order dated 11.04.2023 in C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. (supra), will be extended to third parties from the date of the judgment. Subsequently, taking cognizance of the order dated 06.09.2024 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Department of Personnel and Training vide office memorandum dated 14.10.2024 has considered grant of one notional increment, as stated in para-7, which is quoted herein below: - “7. The matter has been examined in consultation with D/o Expenditure and D/o Legal Affairs. It is advised that pursuance of the Order dated 06.09.2024 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above, action may be taken to allow the increment on 1st July/1st January to the Central Government employees who retired/are retiring a day before it became due i.e. on 30th June/ 31st December and have rendered the requisite qualifying service as on the date of their superannuation with satisfactory work and good conduct for calculating the pension admissible to them. As specifically mentioned in the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, grant of the notional increment on 1st January/1st July shall be reckoned only for the purpose of calculating the pension admissible and not for the purpose of calculation of other pensionary benefits.”

10. Meanwhile, by order dated 18.12.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Review Petition (C) Diary No. 36418/2024 in Civil Appeal No. (S) 2471/2023 Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. In the present case, the OA was filed on 04.11.2026, which is after 01.05.2023, therefore, it comes under the domain of aforesaid decision.

11. In view of the above discussions, the OA is allowed and respondents are directed to grant one notional increment falling due on the very next date i.e. 01st July of relevant year to the applicant, taking into consideration of para (a) of order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Apex Court. The respondents are further directed to issue the revised PPO (after notional fixation of one increment) in favour of the applicant, forthwith.

12. All pending MAs stand disposed of.

(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) PM/- PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA