1. That the respondent no. 1 had superannuated on 31st January, 1989 is not in dispute. According to him, for calculating the retiral benefits admissible to him, the increment falling due on 1st February, 1989 ought to be considered. His claim has not been accepted by the present petitioners. He, accordingly, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application (O.A. No. 557 of 2004). The Tribunal referred to the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court given in Writ Petition nos. 1219 and 1409 of 1998 and held that since the applicant (present respondent no. 1) was entitled to increment on completion of one year, the increment that would have been available to him on 1st February, 1989, ought to be taken into consideration while computing the retiral benefits. The Tribunal in its order dated 8th April, 2005 considered the matter thus:

"3. The annual increment is an incident of service which is granted to an employee for rendering successful and unblemished service for the preceding year. As soon the preceding year ends the employee is entitled to his yearly increment. Under such circumstances, the yearly increment so accrued cannot be denied to him on the technical plea that on the due date of increment he was not in service.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh in writ petitions no. 1219 & 1409 of 1998 rendered by a Division Bench in which similar question arose as the two petitioners stood retired w.e.f. 1.7.1996 and 1.7.1995 respectively. They were denied their annual increment for preceding year on the ground that they stood retired from service by the time the increment became due. The Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad allowed their prayers in the respective O.As. which order was challenged by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the aforesaid two writ petitions wherein their Lordships, while dealing with relevant rules, observed as follows: "The only ground on which the respondents are denied the increment is they were not in service to receive or to be paid the same. Strictly speaking, such a hyper-technical plea cannot be accepted. As observed earlier, with the completion of the years service, an employee becomes entitled for increment, which is otherwise not withheld. After completion of the one year service, the right accrues and what remains thereafter is only its enforcement in the form of payment. Therefore, the benefit of the year long service cannot be denied on the plea that the employee ceased to be in service on the day on which he was to have been paid the increment. There is no rule, which stipulates that an employee must continue in service for being extended the benefit for the service already rendered by him."

5. Their Lordships while deciding those two writ petitions had also elicited support from a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of S.. Banerjee vs. Union of India: AIR 1999 SC 285.

6. Therefore, I find no force in the piea of the respondents that the increment that became payable w.e.f. 1.2.1989 to the applicant for rendering service in the preceding year, which he had rendered, and on completion of the year had become entitled to such an increment, cannot be granted to him.

7. In that view of the matter, this application is allowed and the respondents are directed to calculate the retiral benefits of the applicant also including the amount of the increment which would have been payable to him w.e.f. 1.2.1989."

2. The present petitioners made an application seeking review of the order dated 8th April, 2005. The said review application was dismissed as time barred by the Tribunal, by its order dated 22nd August, 2006. Aggrieved by the orders dated 8th April, 2005 and 22nd August, 2006, the present writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and its functionaries.

3. Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, invited our attention to the order dated 14th Febr