By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner retired as Assistant Engineer serving in the Irrigation Department on 30.6.2009. His increment according to his date of birth was due to him on 1.7.2009. It is alleged that the Department is treating the petitioner to have retired on 30.6.2009 and is not giving the benefit of increment for the purposes of calculation of pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a government servant and in accordance with his date of birth he was entitled for one days salary and the increment due on 1.7.2009, for computation of pension.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in the case of Ram Anjore Singh v. Union of India, 2007(7) ADJ 273 (DB) in which this Court relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Banerjee v. Union of India, 1990 LIC 298, clarified the law with regard to the date of retirement and the applicability of pension. It was held that those persons who retired between 1.1.1986 to 30.6.1986 were entitled to the benefits of the revision of pay scale.

4. The position of law has been explained in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the judgment in Ram Anjore Singh v. Union of India quoted as below :

“17. This results to an inference that the last working day in the service of the Government servant is also the date of his retirement, but it can not be said that the said Government servant would be entitled for pension on 31st December, 1995 and therefore is an existing pensioner or existing family pensioner on 31.12.1995. For the purposes of pension, he would be entitled to draw the same w.e.f. Ist January,1996 and not prior thereto. The O.M. I is applicable to those who are not pre-1996 pensioners/family pensioners since they are governed by O.M.II. Since the petitioner cannot be said to be a pre-1996 pensioner/family pensioners, therefore in our view his case will be covered by O.M.I. It is not the case of the respondents that besides the aforesaid two office memorandums, there is any other office memorandum, which would be applicable to the cases which are not covered by the aforesaid two office memorandums. The view which we have taken has not been shown to be in consisted to any statutory provision and on the other hand since O.M.II is clearly applicable to pre-1996 pensioner/family pensioner, and the petitioner cannot be said to be a pensioner on 31st December, 1995 since that being the last working day and he being entitled for full salary, he would not be entitled for pension on 31st December, 1995, therefore the O.M.II has no application to his case, the same would have to be governed by O.M.I.

18. In this view of the matter, in our view, for the purposes of para 3.1 of O.M.I, the petitioner is entitled to be governed by the provision thereof as he retired on Ist January, 1996. The provision of OM-I, being beneficiary in nature, in the absence of any contrary, express or necessary implication, it should be given a meaning which may cover a larger number of persons without doing any violence to the language of the Statute. The judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of R. Malazkondaiah and others (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, in our view does not apply to the facts of the present case, since the issue involved therein was different and the provision up for consideration before the Andhra Pradesh High Court was also in different context.”

5. In S. Banerjee v. Union of India (supra) followed by the Court, the Supreme Court considering the matter of retirement of Addl. Registrar of the Court relied upon Rule 5(2) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 providing that the date of retirement of the government servant or the date, when he has discharged or is allowed to resign from duties is to be treated as his last working day. The date of death is also treated as last workin