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

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
Original Application No. 27 of 2024 | Original Application No. 28 of 2024 | Original Application No. 29 of 2024 | Original Application No. 912 of 2024 | Original Application No. 921 of 2024 | Original Application No. 930 of 2024 | Original Application No. 388 of 2024 | Original Application No. 666 of 2024 | Original Application No. 667 of 2024 | Original Application No. 668 of 2024 | Original Application No. 1217 of 2024 | Original Application No. 1224 of 2024 | Original Application No. 24 of 2025



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

Entitlement of retiring employees to pension increments becomes effective on their retirement date, ensuring fair pension calculations.

Headnote:The judgement addresses the entitlement of employees retiring on specific dates to receive increments due after their retirement. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions, it clarifies that such increments must be considered for pension calculations. The court directed the respondents to grant these benefits in compliance with established precedents, considering service records of retirees. The ruling established precedents for ongoing cases concerning pension adjustments post-retirement. The primary issue was framed as whether retirees on 30th June or 31st December are entitled to delays in salary increments impacting their pensions. The court emphasized adherence to past rulings, ensuring that those retiring just prior to incrementation dates should not be disadvantaged. The court reiterated the paramountcy of fair pension calculations in line with established laws. The respondents are ordered to grant increment benefits to all qualifying applicants. Enhanced pensions will account for these increments effective from 01.05.2023 onwards, ensuring equitable treatment of all retirees within the established timeframe.

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 Appeal No.2471 of 2023, decided on 11.04.2023 [2023 SCC Online SC 401] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of the service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as costs."

[Emphasis supplied]

5. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that appellants have been directed to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behavior and efficiently. However, in the said judgment, Review Application (Dy. No.36418 of 2024) has been preferred by the Union of India before Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.08.2024 and Their Lordship on 18.12.2024 has dismissed the said RA.

6. Even in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. M. Siddaraj [Special Leave Petition (C) No.4722/2021] and relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, Misc. Application No.2400/2024 has been filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking clarification regarding modalities to be adopted while implementing its order dated 06.09.2024. While observing that the issue raised in the applications requires consideration insofar as the date of applicability of judgment dated 11.04.2023 in C.A. No.2471/2023 Union of India Vs. Siddaraj (supra) to third parties is concerned. Their Lordships issued following directions, by way of an interim order dated 06.09.2024, to prevent any further litigation and confusion:-

“a. The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 30.04.2023 (erroneously mentioned as 31.04.2023 in the Order) will not be paid.

b. For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be paid.

c. The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the appellate court.

d. In case any retired employee has filed an application for intervention

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