A government servant completing one full year of service before retirement is entitled to a notional increment for pension calculation, but this benefit does not extend to other retiral benefits like gratuity or commuted pension, and arrears for third parties are payable from 01.05.2023.

The application having been heard on 27.02.2026, the Tribunal on 03.03.2026 delivered the following order:

O R D E R

Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member

Applicant was a Fitter/Pipe (Semiskilled) in Military Engineering Service, who retired from service on 30.06.2015. He had drawn his previous increment on 01.07.2014. That means, he had retired on 30.06.2015, 365 days after earning the previous increment. Therefore, based on the decision reported in Director (Admn. and Hr) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others [AIR 2023 SC 1956] he is entitled to get an additional increment with effect from 01.07.2015, which was not granted to him. Subsequently also, the Supreme Court has reiterated the decision. It being a judgment in rem is liable to be extended to the benefits of similarly placed pensioners. Thus he seeks the following reliefs:

“a) Declare that the applicant is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of annual increment as on 1st July 2015, as the applicant had already completed 365 days on the last day of retirement, without any discrimination as similarly placed employees have already been granted such benefits.

b) Direct the respondents to re-fix the pay and pensionery benefits of the applicant by granting the annual increment as on 1st July 2015 from his due dates and pay to him all consequential monetary benefits arising therefrom with 12% interest on the same since the year 2015 and till the payment of the same, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.”

2. The respondents have disputed the claim of the applicant. According to them, the annual date of increment of the applicant was in July. Since he had retired from service already on 30.06.2015, he could not have been granted annual increment on 1st July 2015 and therefore the O.A. is without any basis. They have also relied on Annexure-R1(a) O.M. issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 28.11.2019.

3. Against this, the applicant filed a rejoinder stating that the said O.M. is irrelevant in his case. He filed a Sur rejoinder along with Annxure-A7 O.M. dated 20.05.2025 and also Annexure-A8 order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. M.Siddaraj, in M.A. Diary No.2400/2024 in Civil Appeal No.3933/2023 dated 20.02.2025.

4. We heard Sri.S.Sadasivan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.Rajesh Sukumaran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents, in detail.

5. According to learned counsel for the applicant, paragraph 6 of Annexure-A7 O.M. goes beyond the scope of the provisions of the Constitution and also judgments and orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, the O.A. was filed on 2nd August 2023, whereas the O.M. was issued subsequently and therefore, it cannot be operated against the reliefs claimed by the applicant. Here, the question is grant of annual increment and therefore, while granting annual increment, necessarily the pension of the applicant has to be revised and he is entitled to get the gratuity, commuted value of pension also revised.

7. Moreover, according to him, after 01.05.2023 he is entitled to get interest also.

8. On the other hand, Sri.Rajesh Sukumaran has pointed out that the applicant himself has produced Annexure-A7 O.M. dated 20.05.2025. Even though he had raised contentions against the sixth paragraph of the O.M., has not sought for its quashing. According to him, the applicant is not entitled to s