CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR this the 26TH day of November, 2025 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Original Application No. 1214 of 2025 (1) Krishna Kumar Pandey S/O Shri Ram Swaroop Pandey, Aged about 63 years, Retired Mail Overseer, R/O Village & Post- Jobikalan, Via Kymore, District-Katni (MP)-483880 Mobile No.

98937 24653 (2) Sonelal Bhumiya S/O Shri Fukali Bhumiya, Aged about 63 Years, R/O H.No.76, Ward No.01, Village & Post-Kailwasa, Khurd, District-Katni (MP)-483501, Mobile No. 6262953288.

…….Applicants Advocate for the applicants: Shri J.B.Singh V E R S U S

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, 1, Sansad Marg, New Delhi –

110001.

2. Postmaster General, Jabalpur Region, Jabalpur-482001

3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur-482001.

……Respondents Advocate for the respondents: Shri Surendra Pratap Singh.

O R D E R (Oral)

By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-

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

2. The applicants, who have retired on 30th June, 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 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]

4. 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.

5. 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