Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3057
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, A, Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, J
Prabha Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Department Of School Education A& Literacy – Respondent
O.A./4392/2024
Retired employees are entitled to notional increments earned prior to retirement for pension calculations, regardless of retirement timing.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Pensionary benefits - Applicant, a retired TGT, sought a notional increment for pension calculation, denied by respondents on grounds of retirement before increment date - Court held that applicant entitled to the increment earned prior to retirement, referencing Supreme Court decisions. (Paras 6, 11, 12)
(B) Increment entitlement - The court emphasized that an annual increment earned before retirement should be granted despite the timing of retirement, aligning with principles of fair treatment for government employees. (Paras 6, 11)
Facts of the case:
The applicant retired on 30.06.2016, one day before the annual increment due on 01.07.2016, and claimed entitlement to this increment for pension benefits.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents to grant the notional increment and re-fix the pension accordingly, with enhanced pension effective from 01.05.2023.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the applicant was entitled to the annual increment despite retiring the day before it was due.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant should receive the increment earned prior to retirement, reinforcing the principle that service rendered should be recognized in pension calculations.
Result: OA stands allowed and disposed of.
By Hon’ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J):
The applicant - a retired Trained Graduate Teacher [in short TGT] from KVS has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following relief(s) (as extracted from the OA) reproduced as –
“i Allow the present OA and Applicant be given one notional increment for the purpose of pensionary benefits;
ii Direct the respondents to re-fix/revise the pensionary benefits of the applicant and arrears along with interest be paid within a definite time-frame;
iii) Pass such other and further orders, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. Learned counsel for applicant contended that the applicant superannuated from the post of TGT on 30.06.2016 from the office of respondents and one annual increment was due to him on 1st July, 2016 having been superannuated one day before the date of grant of annual increment, but the respondents denied the benefit of grant of one notional increment to the applicant on the ground that she was not in service at the relevant point of time. Since the applicant has already completed one year regular service from 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2016, she is legally entitled for grant of one notional increment with consequential benefits.
3. Shri S. Rajappa, learned counsel for respondents vociferously contended and can be summarized as –
(i) Applicant retired as TGT on 30.06.2016 and as on 1st July, 2016 she was not in government service and annual increment is not admissible as annual increment is admissible only to those government servants who are in service.
(ii) So also cut-off date for grant of annual increment is sacrosanct and it will always cause inconvenience to some of the employees and vehemently prays for dismissal of present OA.
(iii) The applicant appointed to the post of PRT on 01.11.1993 in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) and superannuated on 30.06.2016. As per Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, after 6th CPC, the date of annual increment of all the employees as on 1st July of every year but superannuated on 30.06.2016, hence, not entitled for one increment due on 1st July, 2016 as she was not in government service.
4. Heard with consent of learned counsel for respective parties.
5. Short issue for consideration in the present case is whether applicant who has earned annual increment would legally entitle to same benefit despite the fact that she has retired on 30.06.2016 very next day of earning the annual increment?
6. To buttress the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Director (Admn, and HR) KPTCK and Ors. Vs C.P. Mundinamani & ors. bearing Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023, decided on 11.04.2023 [2023 SCC Online SC 401] wherein Their Lordships held as under:-
"In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of the service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as costs."
[Emphasis supplied]
7. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that appellants have been directed to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behavior and efficiently. However, in the said judgment, Review Application (Dy. No.36418 of 2024) has been preferred by the Union of India before Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.08.202
