Denial of notional increment to retiring government employees based solely on retirement timing violates principles of reasonableness and entitlement under pension rules.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

This writ petition has been filed by twelve petitioners, all employees of the Railway Protection Force, ‘RPF’ for short, who retired from service during different years, but on 30^th of June. Since they were not in service on 1^st of July of the year in which they retired, the annual increment they earned for the period commencing 1^st July of the year preceding their retirement and 30^th of June was denied to them on ground that they were not in service on 1^st of July of the year that they retired, when the increment for the relative year would fall due. In substance, therefore, what the petitioners claim is that though they have earned the annual increment during the relative year of retirement, working for the entire period of one year from 1^st July to 30^th of June of the year they retired, it has been denied to them on the specious ground that on the day the increment actually fell due i.e. 1^st July in the year of their respective retirements, they were not in service. All the petitioners pray that a mandamus be issued, ordering the respondents to grant one notional increment to them as on 1^st July of the respective years of their retirement, which, in each case, fell on 30^th of June of that year, for the limited purpose of determining their pensionary benefits. They further seek a command to the respondents to re-determine the basic pay payable to each of the petitioners, after grant of notional increment, revise their pension benefits accordingly and pay arrears accrued along with interest.

2. The details of the twelve petitioners are set forth in tabular form below :

3. The petitioners say that they have been denied the accrued increment on 30^th June, otherwise due to them, merely because they retired a day before 1^st of July, when increment would fall due. The petitioners have relied on preponderant authority of High Courts as well as the Supreme Court in Director (Administration and Human Resources) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others , (2023) 14 SCC 411 , where it was held that increment payable to a government servant retiring on 30^th June was to be granted to him notionally and his post-retiral benefits calculated on the basis of basic pay determined, with notional increment added.

4. This Court issued a notice of motion vide order dated 31.08.2024, and after a reference to the settled position of law, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani (supra), required the Director General, RPF, Railway Board, New Delhi to file his own affidavit, showing cause why notional annual increment applicable in case of each of the twelve petitioners has not been awarded and their post- retiral benefits revised accordingly. In answer, Manoj Yadav, Director General, RPF, Railway Board, New Delhi has filed his own affidavit.

5. When this petition came up for admission on 20.09.2024, the aforesaid personal affidavit of the Director General was filed in Court. The Court proposed to treat th