Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Sushil Kumar Vig - Petitioner
Versus
Union Bank of India and another - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13751 of 2023
Decided On : 01-04-2024
Increment - Retirement Benefits - Union Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 - Regulation 5 - The court held that an employee who has completed a year of service is entitled to an annual increment, even if the increment falls due on the day after retirement, emphasizing the principle of reasonableness and avoiding arbitrary denial of earned benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Senior Manager of Union Bank of India, sought payment of an annual increment due on 1st February 2013, which was denied on the grounds of his retirement on 31st January 2013. He argued that the increment was earned for the full year of service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of the increment was arbitrary and unreasonable, as the petitioner had completed the requisite service period with good conduct. The court emphasized that the timing of the increment's due date should not negate the entitlement earned through service.
Issues: Whether an employee who retires a day before an annual increment is entitled to that increment based on service rendered in the preceding year.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to an annual increment is based on the completion of a year of service, and retirement on the day before the increment falls due does not negate this entitlement.
Result: The court quashed the denial of the increment and ordered its payment on a notional basis, revising the petitioner's pension accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order dated 15.6.2023, passed by the General Manager (Human Resource), Central Office E.R.D., Union Bank of India, Mumbai, declining to pay increment due to the petitioner for the period 1st Feb, 2012 to 31st Jan, 2013. The petitioner has further prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents ordering them to pay notional annual increment for the period 1.2.2012 to 31.1.2013 that fell due on 1st Feb, 2013 in accordance with law.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is a retired Senior Manager who retired from the service of the respondent-Union Bank of India (for short, 'the Bank') on 31.1.2013 upon attaining the age of superannuation. It is not in dispute that he has received all terminal benefits upon his retirement. The petitioner's date of birth is 1.2.1953 and he has, therefore, retired on 31st Jan, 2013.
3. The petitioner's case is that the annual increment due to the petitioner for the period 1st Feb, 2012 to 31st Jan, 2013 falls due on the 1st of February of each year. The petitioner has always been paid his regular increment while in service on the 1st of February every year for every completed full one year of service, to wit, from the 1st of February of the previous year to the 31st January of the following year. Here also the petitioner was entitled to the increment payable on the 1st of February, 2013 which was denied to him on the pretext that he had retired on 31st January, a day earlier.
4. It is the petitioner's case that denying him the annual increment, that he had earned for the whole year, merely because on the day it became due he had retired, is arbitrary and unreasonable. The said increment cannot be excluded for the purpose of reckoning the petitioner's pensionary benefits, merely because the petitioner was not in service on 1st February, 2013. The petitioner says that he raised this issue, time and again, with superior functionaries of the Bank, but in vain. The issue has long been decided by the Madras High Court in P. Ayammperumal v. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and others, in Writ Petition No. 15732 of 2017 decided on 15.9.2017.
5. The decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in P. Ayammperumal (supra) was challenged by the Union of India before the Supreme Court by means of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22008 of 2018 which was dismissed. The petitioner, accordingly, represented his case to the Bank's functionaries in order to eschew litigation, but to no avail. The petitioner, as a last resort, approached this Court by instituting Writ-A No. 8559 of 2020 claiming the following material relief:
6. The said writ petition was disposed by this Court vide order dated 28.3.2023 with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner's claim within a period of two months, in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order.
7. The petitioner's case is that the Supreme Court has decided the issue finally on 11.4.2023 vide its judgment rendered in Director (Admin. HR) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401. This decision was rendered on 11.4.2023 holding the employees entitled to one annual increment earned for the services rendered over a year, subject to good behaviour. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation to the respondents to decide in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment in C.P. Mundinamani (supra). It was at this stage that the second respondent, the General Manager (Human Resource), Central Office E.R.D., Union Bank Bhawan, Mumbai, passed the order i
An employee is entitled to an annual increment earned for a full year of service, even if the increment is due the day after retirement, to prevent arbitrary denial of benefits.
Employees are entitled to increments earned prior to retirement, even if the increment is due the day after retirement, as denying it is arbitrary.
Increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period – The moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale....
Point of Law : powers of Government of India, of Local Governments and of subordinate authorities to grant a premature increment to an officer are subject to limits up to which each such authority ca....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that government servants are entitled to annual increment after retirement, as the increment becomes payable on the succeeding day and denying it w....
Denial of notional increment to retiring government employees based solely on retirement timing violates principles of reasonableness and entitlement under pension rules.
The entitlement to receive increment crystallizes when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day, and denying a governme....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
