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