SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 8725

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD, this the 11th day of March, 2024 Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member Hon’ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member B. Satyanarayana S/o B.V. Narasaiah, Age: 66 yrs, Occ: Sr. T/H (Rtired), O/o the NFC, Dept. of Atomic Energy, Govt. of India, ECIL Post, Hyderabad; R/o H. No. 1-07-169/3, Kamalanagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad-62.

... Applicant.

(By Advocate : Mr. R Mahanty)

Vs.

1. The Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission and Secretary, Dept. of Atomic Energy, Anushakthi Bhavan, C.S.M. Marg, Mumbai-400001.

2. The Chief Executive, Saradhi Building, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Dept. of Atomic Energy, Govt. of India, ECIL Post, Hyderabad 500062.

3. The Dy. Chief Executive (ADMN), ADHAR BUILDING NFC, Dept. of Atomic Energy, Govt. of India ECIL Post, Hyderabad 500062.

4. Chief Administrative Officer, Adhar Building NFC Dept., ECIL Post, Hyderabad 500062.

5. Liaison Officer for SC/ST, Adhar Building NFC Dept., ECIL Post, Hyderabad 500062 ... Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. A Nageswara Rao, Sr. PC for CG)

-----

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)

Heard Mr. R Mahanty, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. A Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By this Original Application the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):

“to direct the Respondents to grant one annual increment which the applicant had earned one day prior to retired, on attaining the age of superannuation i. e 30.06.2016 in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in R.P. (C) No.1731/2019 in SLP (C) No.22008/2018 duly declaring the action of the authorities in not considering the same as illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice and also against to denying the same is unjust, arbitrary and discriminatory, and against to the Article 141 & 142 and Art. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and oblige.”

3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for applicant submits that, as per the relief prayed for by the applicant, the issue is no more res-integra and is fully covered by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Director, KPTCL & others vs. C. P. Mundinamani & others. The learned counsel for the applicants further relied upon the order passed by this Tribunal in OA/777/2022 dated 10.08.2023 wherein the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of one notional increment to the applicants therein.

4. Heard both sides and perused the records.

5. It is to be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, by its order dated 19.05.2023 disposed of the Batch of appeals in the matter of the Union of India vs. M. Siddaraj, etc., in view of the order passed in C.P. Mundinamani (supra). We feel that, in view of the recent orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the applicant is entitled for the relief as regards the grant of one notional increment on 01.07.2016 for the purpose of retirement benefits.

6. It is also to be noted that the issue involved in the matter with respect to the notional increment is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Thereby, various circulars have been issued by the DOPT as well as the Railways, and there is an exchange of communication in respect of the grant of notional increment. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the representations of the applicant dated 29.06.2016 & 20.09.2016 and dispose of the same for grant of one Notional Increment as on 1st July 2016, as per the policy decision taken by the Government of India, followed with the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgements, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. It is also made clear that our direction will not extend the period of limitation.

7. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of. No order as to costs.

(SHALINI MISRA) (DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE) ADMINISTRATIVEMEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER /SB/

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top