Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 3164
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
K. Dharmalingam – Petitioner
Versus
The Director of Rural Development, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 32328 of 2013
Decided On : 28-11-2017
For the Petitioner:M. Muthupandian, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Vijayakumar, Additional Government Pleader, M. Perumal, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that the benefit of annual increment cannot be denied to pensioners who retired prior to 31.12.2014, as per G.O.Ms.No.311 Finance (CMPC) Department dated 31.12.2014. The court emphasized that the eligibility for annual increments is not contingent on the retirement date, as per the Government Order.
Headnote:
Annual Increment - Government Employees - Fundamental Rules - 1st January, 1st April, 1st July and 1st October - G.O.Ms.No.311 Finance (CMPC) Department dated 31.12.2014 - The court discussed the entitlement of government employees to annual increments as per Fundamental Rules and the implications of G.O.Ms.No.311 Finance (CMPC) Department dated 31.12.2014. The court emphasized that the benefit of annual increment cannot be denied to pensioners who retired prior to 31.12.2014 and clarified that the eligibility for annual increments is not contingent on the retirement date, as per the Government Order.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a government employee, sought annual increment as per Fundamental Rules after retirement. The respondents rejected the claim based on the retirement date being one day before the increment date. The petitioner argued that G.O.Ms.No.311 Finance (CMPC) Department dated 31.12.2014 entitled pensioners to annual increments without specifying a cut-off date for retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the benefit of annual increment cannot be denied to pensioners who retired prior to 31.12.2014, as per G.O.Ms.No.311 Finance (CMPC) Department dated 31.12.2014. The court emphasized that the eligibility for annual increments is not contingent on the retirement date, as per the Government Order.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of government employees to annual increments as per Fundamental Rules and the interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.311 Finance (CMPC) Department dated 31.12.2014 in relation to pensioners who retired prior to the specified date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the benefit of annual increment cannot be denied to pensioners who retired prior to 31.12.2014, as per G.O.Ms.No.311 Finance (CMPC) Department dated 31.12.2014. The court emphasized that the eligibility for annual increments is not contingent on the retirement date, as per the Government Order.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents and competent authorities to implement G.O.Ms.No.311 Finance (CMPC) Department dated 31.12.2014 by granting the benefit of annual increments to the writ petitioner, notionally from the date of retirement and monetarily from 31.12.2014. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs.
1. The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that the Writ petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 15.06.1981, in the Department of Rural Development on records. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Block development Officer on 30.03.2005 and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2013.
2. The petitioner states that as per the Fundamental Rules, the Government employees are entitled to draw annual increment for every completed year of service and the date of annual increment is fixed as 1st January, 1st April, 1st July and 1st October in every year. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2013, one day before the increment dated on 01.07.2013. Thus, the respondents rejected the claim of the Writ petitioner for grant of annual increment as applicable under the Fundamental Rules.
3. This Court has earlier decided the very same issue in a batch of Cases in W.P.Nos.36386 to 36395 of 2016 etc., and the relevant paragraphs are extracted here under:-
3. Accepting the recommendations made by the pay Grievance Redressal Cell, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.311 Finance (CMPC) Department dated 31.12.2014. In the said G.O., the Government in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 has ordered as follows:
“3. After careful consideration, the Government have decided to accept the above recommendation of pay Grievance Redressal Cell. Accordingly, the Government direct that a Government Servant whose increment falls due on the day following superannuation, on completion of one full year of service which are countable for increment under Fundamental Rule 26, be sanctioned with one national increment at the rate as described under rule 6 of Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2009, Purely for the purpose of pensionery benefits and not for any other purpose. The above concession of sanction of notional increment shall take prospective effect from the date of issue of this order.
4. Necessary amendment to the Fundamental Rules shall be issued by personnel and Administrative Reforms Department separately.”
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the rights of the writ petitioner for annual increment is accepted and ensured by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.311 Finance (CMPC) Department dated 31.12.2014.
5. When the grant of annual increment is ensured by the Government, such a concession cannot be denied to the pensioner's who retired prior to 31.12.2014. Further, it is stated that the G.O., does not fix any cut-off date for retirement and as per the G.O., all the State Pensioners who fall in this category are eligible to get their respective annual increments, in the event of fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the said G.O.Ms.No.311.
6. In the absence of any cut-off date in G.O.Ms.No.311, all the pensioners are to be treated as homogeneous class and who ever falls in the category of serving one year and retiring next date of the crucial date for grant of annual increment are entitled for the benefits notionally with effect from the date of retirement and the actual benefits to be paid prospectively from the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No.311 dated 31.12.2014.
7. The learned counsel further took this Court to paragraph No.8, the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, which reads as follows:-
“8. It is submitted that in Government Letter No.5085/CMPC/2015-1, Finance Department, Dated 01.06.2015, it has been clarified that the benefit ordered in G.O.Ms.No.311 Finance (CMPC) Department, Dated 03.12.2014, shall be taken into account for calculating the terminal leave salary as the same is also a retirement benefit. Further, it is submitted that in continuation of the above clarification in Government Letter No. 52367/CMPC/2015-1, Finance Department dated 21.09.2015, it has been clarified that the benefit of notional increment sanctioned in the G.O.Ms.No.311 Finance (CMPC) Department, dated 31.12.2014, shall take prospective effect
