COURT No.2 ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI 10. OA 1148/2023 WITH MA 1761/2023 Ex Hav Birbal Singh sin 988 Applicant VERSUS Union of India and Ors. .... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Bikrama Sah, Advocate For Respondents: Maj Sridhar J, OIC Legal Cell CORAM HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ANJANA MISHRA, MEMBER oO HON’BLE LT GEN P. M. HARIZ, MEMBER (A) ORDER 03.05.2023 MA 1761/2023 Keeping in view the averments made in _ this application and finding the same to be bona fide, in the light of the decision in Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, the instant application is allowed condoning the delay in filing the OA. MA stands disposed of. OA 1148/2023 Invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) Direct respondents to re-calculate the pension and other terminal benefits after taking into OA 1148/2023 WITH MA 1761/2023 Ex Hav Birbal Singh2 account the benefit of NOTIONAL INCREMENT as on 30.06.2020. (b) Direct respondents to grant interest @ 12% on the arrears of pension and other terminal benefits to which the applicant is geld entitled in terms of the re- calculation after implementing the order at (a) above. (c) Pass an order awarding cost of the present application for compelling the filing of the instant application. 3. In this OA, the only question that arises for our consideration is as to whether an employee who retired on 30% June or 31st December of a year is entitled to the benefit of increment that falls due on 1s July of that year or 1st January of the next year. The applicant in this case was re-enrolled in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) on 10% May, 2004 and discharged from service on 30% June, 2020. He was, however, denied the benefit of increment, which was otherwise due to him. He was given his last annual increment on 1s July, 2019 and was denied the increment that fell due on 1% July, 2020 on the ground that he was not in service on the day when it fell due. OA 1148/2023 WITH MA 1761/2023 Ex Hav Birbal Singh3 4. According to the applicant merely because the applicant on being superannuated was not in service on the 1st day of July of the year from which he was to be paid the increment, the denial of increment to him, which he had earned by working for a year, is unsustainable in law. Placing reliance on an order passed by the Madras High Court on 15th September, 2017, in WP No.15732/2017 in the case of PAyyamperumal Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and Ors., and the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 21st March, 2017 in OA No.310/00917/2015, applicant has prayed for the relief claimed in this OA. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to our notice two interlocutory orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA Diary No.875/2023 and 2853/2023, wherein orders passed by the Regional Bench, Lucknow, granting similar relief, as claimed for in this OA, have been stayed. 6. | However, learned counsel for the applicant has further brought to our notice an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11‘ April, 2023 in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023, namely, Zhe Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL and OA 1148/2023 WITH MA 1761/2023 Ex Hav Birbal Singh4 Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Ors., and in the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in the case of P Ayyamperumal (supra), the provisions of the Regulations in the matter of payment of increment, decisions of the Gujarat High Court, the Delhi High Court, the Allahabad High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Orissa High Court and finally after taking note of various aspects of the matter, the issue has been discussed in detail in Para 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 in the following manner:- “6.2 It 1s the case on behalf of the appellants that the word used in Regulation 40(1) is tha