CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this 21^st day of August, Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER G. Mani, MTS (Retd.), S/o C.T. Ganesan, No.18, Sathiyamoorthy Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s D. Solomon Pandian Vs

1. Union of India rep by the Joint Secretary(Revenue), Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Room No.46, North Block, New Delhi.

2.The Additional Director General, O/o Directorate General of Performance Management, Customs, GST & Central Excise, South Regional Unit, No.617, Bharat Kumar Bhavn, 3rd Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai. .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. Su. Srinivasan, SCGSC

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

The relief sought by the applicant in the OA is as follows:

“1. ….. To direct the respondents to release one increment due to the applicant for the period he has served from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022 notionally w.e.f. 01.07.022

2. and pray the Hon'ble Tribunal do tidrect the respondents to issue corrigendum PPO for the revised pension due to the applicant after the sanction of notional increment along with arrears and interest for the delayed period.

3. It is therefore prayed that this Hon' ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow my petitions as prayed for and thus render justice.”

2 When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the issue is no more res-integra and the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High courts including the Tribunals of various Benches have decided the issue in favour of the applicant on the issue of notional increment. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that for completed period of one year the employees retired on th st

30 June or 31 December, as the case may be, are entitled for one increment even though they are not in service.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Judgment, dated 11.04.2023, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Director(Admn & HR), KPTCL & Others Vs C.P. Mundinamani & Others reported in 2023 (3) SCR 337 (ii) Judgment, dated 15.09.2017 of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs The Registrar, CAT in WP No.15732 of 2017 (iii) Judgment, dated 10.04.2024, of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in WP No.8982 of 2024 (iv) Judgment, dated 03.11.2023 of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the WP.No.28435 of 2023.

(v) Judgment, dated 11.04.2023, of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the WP.No.17116 of 2020 (vi) Judgment, dated 09.05.2024 of the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.485 of 2024.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the reply statement filed by the respondents, vehemently opposed the submission of the applicant. The preliminary objection of the respondents is that the applicant in the present OA has not questioned any of the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules nor FR 56 under which his pension are arrived at and being laid on superannuation. In absence of challenge to the relevant provisions/extant rules, no relief could be granted and as such an OA cannot be maintained. It is settled law that no Courts/Tribunals can grant relief or direct the statutory authorities to do certain thing contrary to statutory provisions of instructions. Hence, on this ground alone the OA is liable to be dismissed. The interpretation given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in KPTCL case in consideration of Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997, cannot be ipso facto be made applicable without any challenge to CCS (Pension)

Rules or FR 56 or any other rule.

5. He further contended that the applicant had suddenly now woken up from his long slumber and attempting to revive the ‘dead’ and ‘stale’ matter after several years seeking relief from the date of his superannuation. There is no explanation in the OA giving reasons for undue and enormous delay