Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5326

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, J, Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, ACJ
M.Simhachalam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA Nos 1535 | 1541 | 1692 | 1693 | 1694 | 1695 | 1696 | 1697 | 1698 | 1699 | 1700 | 1701 | 1702 | 1703 | 1704 | 1705 | 1706 | 1707 | 1708 | 1709 | 1710 | 1711 | 1712 | 1713 | 1714 | 1726 | 1727 | 1728 | 1729 | 1730 | 1731 | 1739 | 1740 | 1741 | 1742 | 1743 | 1744 | 1745 | 1746 | 1747 | 1748 | 1749 | 1750 | 1751 | 1752 | 1753 | 1754 | 1755 | 1756 | 1757 | 1758 | 1759 | 1760 | 1761 | 1762 | 1763 | 1764 | 1765 | 1766 | 1767 | 1768 | 1769 | 1770 | 1771 | 1772 | 1773 | 1774 | 1775 | 1776 | 1777 | 1778 | 1781 | 1789 | 1790 | 1791 | 2089 | 2133 | 2134 | 2136

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.Gurudas, Dr.S.Goverdhan Rao, Mr.D.Laxminarayana Rao, Ms.N.Naga Prasanthi, Mr.Anita Swain, Mr.A.Surender Reddy, Mr.P.Narayana, Mrs.B.Gayatri Varma, Mr.M.Mohan Rao, Mr.V.Bhavani Shankar, Mr.G.Raghunath, Mr.N.V.Subbarayudu, Mr.V.Venu Madhava Swamy, Mr.P.Krishna, Mrs.Rachna Kumari
For the Respondents: Mr.Venkata Swamy, Sr.PC for CG, Mrs.K.Rajitha, Sr.PC for CG, Mrs.B.Gayatri Varma, Sr.CGSC

Tribunal directed consideration of notional increments for pension benefits based on Supreme Court directives pending final ruling.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Original Applications for notional increment - Applicants, all retired employees, sought a direction for granting one notional increment for pension benefits - The Tribunal noted a common issue across the applications and deferred hearing pending Supreme Court's final decision on similar matters. (Paras 2-6)

(B) Pension and Pensionary Benefits - The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider claims for notional increments for pensionary benefits based on Supreme Court directives. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
The applications were filed by multiple retired government employees seeking a notional increment for pension benefits, citing a recent Supreme Court directive impacting their claims.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal recognized the commonality of issues among the applications and decided to defer hearings until the Supreme Court's final ruling.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the applicants were entitled to a notional increment for pension benefits based on recent Supreme Court directives.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal emphasized that the claims for notional increments should be evaluated in light of the Supreme Court's directives, ensuring compliance with the established criteria post-verdict.

Result: OAs disposed of with directions to consider claims for notional increments.

Table of Content
1. common relief sought for pension increments (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. submission regarding deferral of hearing (Para 4)
3. consideration of claims for notional increments (Para 5 , 6)
4. disposal of oas at admission stage (Para 7)

ORAL ORDER

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

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By these Original Applications, applicants are praying for similar relief, viz., seeking a direction to the Respondents to grant one notional increment from 1^st July / 1^st January, as the case may be, for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits with all other consequential benefits.

3. Since the issue involved in all these OAs is common, by the consent of the both the sides, matters have been taken up for consideration at the admission stage.

4. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, after the Supreme Court’s direction, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, vide its OM No.19/116/2024-Pers.Pol.(Pay)(Pt), dated 14.10.2024, have also taken a decision following the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide M.A. Dy. No.2400/2024 in SLP (C) No.4722/2021 (Union of India & Ors Vs. M. Siddaraj), dated 06.09.2024. It is stated that, after the final verdict in the said matters, the same will be adopted by way of policy decision and the benefit will be extended accordingly. Therefore, the Railways have requested this Tribunal to defer the hearing in new cases till a final decision is pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

5. In the earlier O.As, this Tribunal passed the following order:

“…..Therefore, we are of the considered view that if the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicants for grant of one notional increment for the purpose of pensionary benefits, and not for any other purpose subject to verification that he/she had completed one full year of service, if they fulfil the parameters) of the final orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court as & when passed in above MA(s)/IA(s) in SLP, which are subjudice, then the purpose of filing of these OAs and the relief prayed therein will be fulfilled. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicants for grant of one notional increment for the purpose of pensionary benefits, and not for any other purpose, if they fulfil the criteria / requirement after the final order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above MA(s) / IA(s) in SLP.”

6. Since we have taken a decision in the earlier O.As, if we continue with the said decision, the interest of the department will not be frustrated. Therefore, we are passing similar order, as above.

7. In view of the same, the O.As are disposed of at the admission stage, in terms of the above directions. No order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document