( 1 ) INTRODUCTION, these Writ Petitions are filed by the principal Accountant General of Andhra pradesh and the Comptroller and Auditor general of India, New Delhi, assailing the judgments and orders of the Central administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in different Original Applications moved under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals act, 1985. In all the judgments, the learned tribunal followed its earlier judgment in O. A. No. 401 of 1992, dated 2-12-1992 (P. Yellamanda v, Comptroller and Auditor general of India) (hereafter called, yellamanda case), a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India v. R. Malakondaiah (hereafter called, malakondaiah case), which followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in s. Banerjee v. Union of India (hereafter called, Banerjee case ). These matters were initially placed before a Division Bench of this Court. It was submitted by the petitioners counsel before the said Bench that the decision of the Supreme Court in banerjee case is not applicable and that the decision of this Court in Malakondaiah case requires reconsideration. Therefore, it was felt that an authoritative pronouncement is required in the matter and accordingly, the division Bench referred the matters to Full bench. That is how the matters are placed before this Full Bench. This common judgment shall dispose of all these five Writ petitions. Background facts,

( 2 ) TO understand the controversy, it isnecessary to refer to the fact of the matter in writ Petition No. 22042 of 2003. The sole respondent retired as Senior Audit Officer in the Office of the first petitioner on 31-12-2001 afternoon. He was paid death-cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG) on the basis of his last drawn pay of Rs,9,925/- plus D. A. at the rate of 45%. His increment was due on 1-1-2002. But, the same was not sanctioned and therefore, it was not reckoned for the purpose of calculating the pension, DCRG and other benefits. After accepting these benefits, the respondent made a representation on 11-3-2002 to the first petitioner- Principal Accountant General (Audit) requesting to sanction increment of rs. 275/- which fell due on 1-1-2002. By communication dt. 2-4-2002, first petitioner rejected the claim of the respondent informing that the respondent is not eligible for increment with effect from 1-1-2002 as his pay was fixed under proviso to Note-1 below Rule 34 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereafter called, the pension Rules ). Assailing the communication dt. 2-4-2002 of the first petitioner, the respondent filed O. A. No. 797 of 2002 before the learned Tribunal. The respondent prayed to set aside the orders of first petitioner and for a consequential direction to revise pensionary benefits of the respondent by granting benefit of increment due on 1-1-2002 and the D. A. instalments sanctioned by the Government of India raising D. A. from 45% to 49%. The respondent mainly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Banerjee case and earlier decision of learned Tribunal in yellamanda case, the judgment of Division bench of this Court in Malakondaiah case and the decision of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New delhi in M/s. Kamala Gupta v. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya sanghatan.

( 3 ) THE petitioners herein contested theclaim of the respondent by filing reply statement. They urged that the decision of the learned Tribunal in Yellamanda case and the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Malakondaiah case are judgments in personam and therefore they have no general applicability. They also contended that the respondent having retired on 31-12-2001 ceased to be in Government service with effect from that date, that the respondent was a pensioner with effect from 1 -1 -2002 and that he was not entitled for any emoluments with effect from 1-1-2002 by reason of which no increment need be paid to him. Commonality in all cases,

( 4 ) IN all these matters, as in W. P. No