Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MR. AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JM, SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, AM
Prahlad Kumar S/o Harilal, et al. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, et al. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. entitlement of retired employees to pensions based on increment timings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. clarification on supreme court's rulings regarding pension increments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. directions for processing pension adjustments based on rulings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
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. While some of the applicants 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.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has 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
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
