Harish Kumar, J. – Heard the parties.

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to an order dated 19.08.2019 issued under the signature of Senior Audit Officer (Administration), as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, by which the representation of the petitioner for grant of one increment against the post of Assistant Audit Officer as on 01.07.2008 has been rejected after observing that the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 as contained in Annexure-3 is not applicable universally and to all the similarly placed retired Central Government servant.

3. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has contended that the respondents have failed to consider that the decision rendered by the learned Division Bench of the Madras High Court came to be affirmed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).22283 of 2018. Taking this Court through the decision rendered by the learned Division Bench of the Madras High Court, it has further been submitted that the judgment does not leave room for any confusion that it would not apply to all the identically situated employees. Moreover, in an identical matter where the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench was challenged before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench; the learned Court while affirming the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, referring to the decision of Madras High Court in W.P. No.15732 of 2017, has held that the applicant who was granted annual increment on 01.07.2013 had completed one year of service as on 30.06.2014 i.e., the date of his superannuation and thus do not find any error in the reasoning of the Tribunal, who directed for extending the benefit of next increment. The learned Division Bench also noted that the challenge to the order passed in W.P. No.15732 of 2017 also failed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the Accountant General referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit has submitted that the judgment on which the petitioner is placing reliance is only a judgment in personam and not in rem; hence, the benefit which was extended to the applicant in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 that would not be admissible to the petitioner.

5. Having heard the submissions set forth by the learned Advocate for the respective parties, this Court finds that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been set at rest in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 [Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Others], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in so many words clarified the position and turned down the objection by holding in para-6.5 as follows: –

“Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that as the increment has accrued on the next day on which it is earned and therefore, even in a case where an employee has earned the increment one day prior to his retirement but he is not in service the day on which the increment is accrued is concerned, while considering the aforesaid issue, the object and purpose of grant of annual increment is required to be considered. A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specifi