SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ker) 515

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
Vijayan P.R., S/o. P.R. Rmakrishnan Nair & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare & Ors. - Respondents
O.P.(CAT) Nos. 65, 67, 68, 71, 73, 84, 94 & 95 of 2023
Decided On : 10-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: C.S. Gopalakrishnan Nair.
For the Respondent: Sri. S. Manu, Dy. Solicitor General of India, Sri. T.V. Vinu-CGC, Sri. Suvin R. Menon-CGC.

Point of Law : Rule 10 deals with date on which an annual increment is payable to employee.

Headnote:

Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997 - Regulation No.40(1) - Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 - Rule 10, 33 - Government servant - Retiral benefits - Annual increment - Issue pertains to question whether a Government servant, who retired on last working day of preceding month, but whose annual increment falls due on first of succeeding month, is entitled for such increment - Merely because Government servant has retired a day prior to date on which benefit is due, entitlement cannot be deprived - Para 11.

Finding of the Court :

Court cannot appreciate and recognise argument of learned counsel for respondents, inasmuch as Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised right of employees based on a purposive interpretation based on object and concept based upon which an annual increment is granted - This is all more so, in view of findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court that, depriving benefit, which emanates from a service which has been admittedly rendered, would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness, in light of which, Court can only find that argument based on proviso to Note I of Rule 33 is also squarely in teeth of arbitrariness and unreasonableness, as found by Hon'ble Supreme Court - Original petitions succeed and impugned Common Order of Tribunal is hereby set aside.

Result : Petitions allowed.

JUDGMENT :

C. Jayachandran, J.

A common issue, which surfaced for consideration in as many as 16 Original Applications, has been disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench as per a Common Order dated 1.11.2022, whereby all the Original Applications were dismissed. The said Common Order is under challenge in the original petitions afore-referred. The common issue, which was considered by the Tribunal, the correctness of which we are called upon to decide, has the overtone, more of a legal nature, than factual, based on interpretation of the relevant Rules. The issue pertains to the question whether a Government servant, who retired on the last working day of the preceding month, but whose annual increment falls due on the first of the succeeding month, is entitled for such increment? The legal imbroglio received different interpretation and answer by the various High Courts across the country, including that of ours. However, the issue has been finally settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by virtue of the authoritative pronouncement made in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and Others [2023 SCC OnLine SC 401], whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised the claim of the retired employees, on an interpretation of the relevant statutory rule and accepting the views expressed in the judgments in this regard by the High Courts of Allahabad, Gujarath, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Madras; and disapproving the judgments which took a contrary view by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and that of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. However, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents seriously persuaded us to draw a factual distinction based on the relevant Rules applicable, wherefore, we are impelled to consider the issue in detail.

2. Although we are dealing with 8 different Original Petitions, a separate assessment of the facts in each of these cases is not required, inasmuch as the issue for consideration in all these cases, as already indicated, is common. Suffice to notice that the petitioners herein have retired from their respective establishments on attaining the age of superannuation. As on the date of their retirement, they have earned an annual increment, which, however, is due and payable only on the very next day. The request of the petitioners to reckon the annual increments for the purpose of retiral benefits did not find favour with the respondents/employers. They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench by filing the subject Original Applications. However, the O.As. were dismissed by the common impugned order by the Tribunal. The Tribunal took note of the relevant Rule, which contemplates grant of annual increment on first July or January, as the case may be, to arrive at a conclusion that employees concerned must continue as on the said date to claim the benefit of the annual increment, wherefore, an employee, who stood retired on the previous day, is not entitled for the same. The Tribunal also took note of the judgments rendered by the various High Courts and chose to toe in line with the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Hari Prakash v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others [2020 SCC OnLine HP 2362]. The Tribunal also followed the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhavsingh Tomar and Others v. M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. and Others [2020 SCC OnLine MP 4360] and also that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Principal Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh and another v. C. Subba Rao [2005 (2) ALT 25]. In dismissing the claim, the Tribunal also did not choose to follow the judgment of the Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal v. The Registrar and Ors. [CDJ 2017 MHC 6274]. The trump card of the petitioners/retired employees before us was the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani (supra), wherein the very issue is seen addressed

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
            whatsapp-icon Back to top