CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

MUMBAI BENCH, CAMP AT NAGPUR

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.1069/2024

Date of Decision:25th September, 2024

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. SHRI KRISHNA, MEMBER (A)

HON’BLE MR. UMESH GAJANKUSH, MEMBER (J)

Rakeshkumar S/o.

Shri Hiruprasad Shakya,

Aged 61 years, Occ.: Retd.

Senior Technician (Telecom Maintainer)

R/o. Plot No. 167, Surendra Nagpur,

Khamla Road, Nagpur - 440015.

Applicant

Mobile No.9403870274. ...

(By Advocate Shri D.S. Lambat)

Versus

1.Union of India,

Through the General Manager,

Central Railway,

Mumbai CST.-400001

2.Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,

Central Railway, DRM Office,

Kingsway, Nagpur-440001. ... Respondents

(By Advocate Shri Bhaskar D. Pandit)

ORAL ORDER been decided by the respondents so far.

Per: Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (Administrative)

The applicant is retired on 30th June,

2023. He has filed this OA seeking direction to the respondents to grant notional increment as his representation for the same has not

. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble The Director (Admn.

Supreme Court in the case of And HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401.

He submits that the applicant is similarly placed to the employees in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) and, therefore, he should be granted the same benefit.

3 . We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4 . We are of the view that as per the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL &

case of Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. (supra), the applicant is entitled to notional increment. The observations of the Supreme Court in the The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL &

case of Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani (supra)

are as under:-

“6. The short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is whether an employee who has earned the annual increment is entitled to the same despite the fact that he has retired on the very next day of earning the increment?

6.1 In the present case, the relevant provision is Regulation

40(1) of the Regulations which reads as under: -

“Drawals and postponements of increments

1. An increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned. An increment that has accrued shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment may be withheld from an employee by the competent authority, if his conduct has not been good, or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an increment, the withholding authority shall state the period for which it is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments.”

6.2 It is the case on behalf of the appellants that the word used in Regulation 40(1) is that an increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned and in the pre- sent case the increment accrued on the day when they re- tired and therefore, on that day they were not in service and therefore, not entitled to the annual increment which they might have earned one day earlier. It is also the case on be- half of the appellants that as the increment is in the form of incentive and therefore, when the employees are not in ser- vice there is no question of granting them any annual in-

crement which as such is in the form of incentive.

6.3At this stage, it is required to be noted that there are divergent views of various High Courts on the issue involved. The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the Kerala High Court have taken a contrary view and have taken the view canvassed on behalf of the appellants. On the other hand, the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ay- yamperumal (supra); the Delhi high Court in the case of Gopal Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 10509/2019 decided on 23.01.2020); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ A No. 13299/2020 decided on 29.06.2021); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yo