Retirees are entitled to annual grade increments despite superannuation, but entitlement to arrears depends on timely challenges to non-payment.

ORDER :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. All the present writ petitions have been filed with a prayer that the petitioners be held entitled to get the benefit of annual grade increment falling due on 1^st July irrespective of their superannuation on 30^th June.

2. The writ petitioners comprise of persons retiring between the period of year 2007 to 2023. A list of respective petitioners in all the writ petitions, with the date of their retirement, is annexed as Appendix-A.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submit that the issue involved has been put to rest by a Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court at Jaipur in Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary & Ors., 2023 (7) WLC 211 (Raj.) whereby the Court, while relying upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., (2023) 14 SCC 411 observed and held as under :

“41. Hence, looking to the binding effect of above judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) and All India Judges Association (supra), it is held that the petitioners would be entitled to get the benefits of increment falling due on 1^st July on account of their conduct for the requisite length of time i.e. one year. The petitioners would be entitled to get notional payment on 1^st July notwithstanding their superannuation on 30^th June.

42. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove and therater grant notional increment to the petitioners. The petitioners’ pension would consequently be refixed. The appropriate orders be issued and the arrears of pension be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

43. With the aforesaid directions, all these petitions stand dispose of.”

4. This Court, after hearing the counsels on 27.05.2024, though was in conformity with the ratio of Vijay Singh’s case (supra) to the extent that the petitioners would be entitled to get notional benefit of annual grade increment on 1^st July not withstanding their superannuation on 30^th June, but intended to differ on the aspect of entitlement of the petitioners to get the arrears of pension. The said view of the Court was for the reason that the petitioners include not only those who retired in the year 2023 but also those who retired way back in the year 2007 and thereafter. They chose to approach the Court only after the judgment in Vijay Singh’s case (supra) having been passed. The issue therefore was, whether such persons would be entitled to the arrears of pension for the complete period even when they did not choose to challenge the non-payment of the annual grade increment at the time when they retired. The Court therefore, on the said date, framed the following two issues for consideration :

i. Whether the petitioners who have retired way back between the years 2016-19 would be entitled to the benefit of increment with effect from the respective month of July or that year in light of the judgment dated 21.07.2023 of this Court at Jaipur Bench rendered in a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21/2020; Vijay Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.?

ii. Whether the case of Vijay Singh (supra) would have a retrospective effect ?

5. All the respective counsels for the petitioners as well as learned AAG, Mr. Rajesh Panwar argued on the above aspect and even written submissions on behalf of the respondent State had been filed.

6. However, this Court is now not required to delve into the above issues as the similar issues were raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of several applications, the main being Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400/2024 in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023; Union of India Vs. M. Siddaraj,Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 was decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court while relying upon the judgment in C.P. Mundinamani’s case (supra) i.e. the same judgment relied upon in Vijay Singh’s