L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) A short but important question that arises for consideration in these two writ petitions is, whether an employee who retires on the date when the increment becomes due is entitled for payment of the same.

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent in W. P. Nos. 1219 and 1409 of 1998 were working as Audit officer and Supervisor respectively in the office of the 3rd petitioner. Their dates of births were 1-7-1938 and 23-6-1937 and as such they stood retired with effect from 1-7-1996 and 1-7-1995 respectively. They were denied the annual increment of the year preceding their date of retirement on the ground that they stood retired from service by the time it became due. Therefore, they filed O. A. Nos. 518/97 and 862/97 respectively before the Central administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short the Tribunal ). Following its order in O. A. No. 401/92 dated 2-12-1992, the tribunal allowed the two O. As. , viz. , O. A. No. 518/97 and 862/97 through its orders dated 1-5-1997 and 16-7-1997, which are almost verbatim. The Government challenges the said orders in these two writ petitions.

( 3 ) SRI R. S. Murthy, the learned Additional central Government Standing Counsel, submits that the view taken by the Tribunal, that the respondents who retired on 1st July, on which date the increment fell due, were entitled for the same, cannot be sustained in law. He places reliance upon Rule 33 of the central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) and also Article 151 of the Civil Service regulations (hereinafter referred to as the regulations ). According to him, once an employee stood retired on the date on which the increment fell due, he is not entitled for the same; the reason being that, the question of payment of increment to an employee arises if only he continues to be in service. On the other hand, Sri P. V. P. Mrutyunjaya rao, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent in both the writ petitions, submits that the employees become entitled for the increment for the services rendered by them during the preceding year after completion of the year s satisfactory service, and what remains to be done is only payment of the same. Once the entitlement accrues, the result of it cannot be denied. He places reliance upon the judgment of the hon ble Supreme Court in S. Banerjee v. Union of India.

( 4 ) TO appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents; it is necessary to extract the provisions, on which the learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance. Rule 33 of the rules reads as under:"emoluments:- The expression emoluments means basic pay as defined in Rule 9 (21) (a) (i) of the fundamental Rules which a government servant was receiving immediately before his retirement or on the date of his death; and will also include non-practising allowance granted to medical officer in lieu of private practice. "similarly, Article 151 of the Regulations reads as under:-"an increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned. "

( 5 ) THE fact that the emoluments of a government servant have to be taken as the basic pay, which he was receiving immediately before his retirement, is not at all in controversy. Similarly, the proposition that an increment accrues from the date following that on which it is earned is also not in dispute. Increment in pay is a condition of service. In a way, it is a reward for the unblemished service rendered by an employee, which gets transformed into a right. Once an employee renders the service for the period, which takes with it an increment, the same cannot be denied to him/her. It is not in dispute that both the respondents rendered unblemished service for one year before the respective dates of their retirements. The periodicity of increment in the service is one year. On account of rendering the unblemished service, they became entitled for increment in their emoluments.

( 6 ) THE only ground on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document