CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMAI BENCH, MUMBAI.

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.210/2024 Date of Decision: 23” February, 2024 CORAM: Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)

1. Mr. Suryakant Achyut Patankar S/o Achyut Patankar aged about 67 yrs.

Retired Sr. Stenographer, Central Railway, Mumbai CSMT, resident of 402, Parth Regency CHS, Shivaji path, near Nehru Maidan, Dombivali (East)

Distt. Thane, Pin — 421 201 (Maharashtra)

Email : survakantpatankar@qmai1.com Mob No.9004068361.

( 2. Mr. Chandrakant Pundlik Dalimbe S/o Pundlik Dalimbe, aged about 62 years Retired Chief Office Superintendent, Central Railway, Mumbai CSMT, resident of flat No.201, Saishradha Complex, behind Registration Office, Surya Nagar, Katrap, Post Badlapur (East) — 421 503 Distt.Thane (Maharashtra)

Email—chandrakantdalimbe22@qmail.com Mob No.9029557480. ... Applicants ( By.Advocate S.A. Siddiqui)

VERSUS

1. Union of India through, Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi — 110 O01.

2. General Manager, Central Railway, Head Quarter Office, Mumbai CSMT — 400 001.

3. Divisional Railway Manager (P), Mumbai Division, Central Railway, Mumbai, CSMT—400 001. ... Respondents (By Advocate Shri R.R. Shetty)

ORDER (ORAL)

Per: Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Member (JL MA Nb.200/2024 has been filed by the applicants seeking permission to file the OA jointly. For the reasons stated therein in the MA, the same is allowed. -

2. MA Nb.20l/2024 has been filed by the applicants seeking condonation of delay. For the reasons stated therein in the MA, the same is allowed. Delay is condoned.

3. The present OA has been filed by the applicants seeking direction to the respondents to grant one notional increment w.e.f. 01st July, 2016 and O1“ July, 2021 respectively.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that very recently the Hon'ble i g 1 Apex Court in the case of TheDirect0r (Admn.AndHR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. CR Mundinamani & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 decided on 11“ April, 2023 has laid down the law and in such cases has held as under:—

“6. The short question which is posed for the consideration ofthis 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 ofeaming the increment?

6.1 In the present case,ithe relevant provision is Regulation 40(1)

ofthe Regulations which reads as under: - .

“Drawals and postponements ofincrements

40.1) An increment accrues fiom 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.” r

6.2 It is the case on behalf ofthe 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 present case the increment accrued on the day when they retired and therefore, on that day they were not in service and therefore, not entitled to the annual increment which they might have eamed one day earlier. It is also the case on behalf of the appellants that as the increment is in the form of incentive and therefore, when the employees are not in service there is no question of granting them any annual increment which as such is in the form ofincentive.

6.3 At this stage, it is required to be noted that there are divergent views ofvarious High Courts on the issue involved. The Full Bench ofthe 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