T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

The challenge by the petitioners is against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in

O.A. No.1039/2003. The Original Application was filed by the first respondent seeking for a direction to release the annual increment that fell due on 1.1996 with consequential benefits. He had retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years with effect from 312.1995. The Tribunal has taken the view that the applicant is entitled to be paid the increment which tell due on 1.1996 and granted consequential benefits.

2. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the first respondent/applicant. Relying upon Ext.P8 judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Shri T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners contended that once a person has retired from service on attaining superannuation. There is no question of granting increments which fell due on the next day, as he was not in service on that day Reliance is also placed on FR 56(a). FR24 and FR 26 mainly to contend that once the officer ceases to discharge the duties attached to a post, the question of drawing an increment does not arise