Subbroto Ghosh, Vinay Kumar Jain, Binod Behari Dash, Braj Nath Singh, B.B. Machhade, Gopichandra Hathgain, V.S.R. Murthy, Sunil Kumar, Manoj Kumar, G. Padmeshwar Rao, Madhav Gopal Chhattoraj, B. Rama Rao, Kanchan Kumar Baksi, Ajaya Kumar Swain, Mohd. Inamul Haque, Prasanna Kumar Mohanta, Sudhir S.C Kujur, Nagoor, S. Narayana Rao, Mangalu Ram Kashyap, Mansingh, Surit Ram Yadav, Bihari Lal, Lallan Shaw, Ranjit Kumar Das, Himmat Lal Todar, Amritlal Todar, Khemchand Sahu, Jay Bahadur, E.D. Seshagiri Rao, Suraj, Ramcharan, Katharam, Abdul Jabbar vs Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, General Manager, South East Central Railways, Principal Chief Personnel Officer, South East Central Railways

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 8109

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Akhil Kumar Srivastava, J, Mallika Arya, ACJ
Subbroto Ghosh, Vinay Kumar Jain, Binod Behari Dash, Braj Nath Singh, B.B. Machhade, Gopichandra Hathgain, V.S.R. Murthy, Sunil Kumar, Manoj Kumar, G. Padmeshwar Rao, Madhav Gopal Chhattoraj, B. Rama Rao, Kanchan Kumar Baksi, Ajaya Kumar Swain, Mohd. Inamul Haque, Prasanna Kumar Mohanta, Sudhir S.C Kujur, Nagoor, S. Narayana Rao, Mangalu Ram Kashyap, Mansingh, Surit Ram Yadav, Bihari Lal, Lallan Shaw, Ranjit Kumar Das, Himmat Lal Todar, Amritlal Todar, Khemchand Sahu, Jay Bahadur, E.D. Seshagiri Rao, Suraj, Ramcharan, Katharam, Abdul Jabbar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, General Manager, South East Central Railways, Principal Chief Personnel Officer, South East Central Railways – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Dilip Kumar Swain, Shri A.V. Shridhar, Smt. Smita Jha
For the Respondents: Shri Palash Tiwari, Shri Bhupendra Pandey, Shri T.D. Tiwari, Shri S. Rathod, Shri Himanshu Shrivastava, Shri Rama Kant Mishra

Table of Content
1. eligibility for increments for retirees. (Para 1 , 4)
2. court's directive for timely pension adjustments. (Para 3 , 9)
3. enforcement of previous supreme court orders. (Para 5 , 6)
4. final directives for pension re-computation. (Para 10 , 11)

ORDER

By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-

The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether an employee, who retired on 30th June of a year or 31st December of a preceding year, is entitled to be extended the benefit of increment that falls due on 1st July or 1st January of the next year, as the case may be.

2. Since the issue involved in all these Original Applications is common in nature, they are being decided by way of a common order.

3. While the applicants in some of the cases have retired on 30th June, others retired on 31st December. They are aggrieved that they have not been granted the benefit of increment, which was otherwise due to them, only on the ground that by the time the increment became due, they were not in service.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants have 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 App

Click Here to Read the rest of this document