(Open Court)

Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ****

Original Application No. 281 of 2026 This the 20^th Day of March, 2026.

Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)

Suresh Prasad, aged about 67 years, C/o Dagar Prasad, PPO No. 403201802502, retired on 30.06.2018 from the post of REFG MECH HS-II, House No. 111q/r vishnapuri colony ponghatpul, Bamrouli Uparhar, Allahabad Uttar Pradesh 211012.

….Applicant.

By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Upadhyay/Mr. Sachin Upadhyay.

Versus

1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Defense, South Block, New Delhi 110001.

2. Engineer in Chief, Military Engineer Services, Integrated HQ's, Kashmiri House, New Delhi-110001.

3. Commander Works Engineer Air Force Maharajpur Gwalior.

4. Garrison Engineer Air Force Tech Area Maharajpur Gwalior.

5. The Principal Controller of Defense Accounts (Pension), Prayagraj.

....Respondents.

By Advocate: Mr. Chakrapani Vatsyayan.

ORDER Mr. M.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

2. This O.A. has been filed on 09.03.2026 by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following main relief(s):-

“(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may please to direct the respondents to grant the applicant one notional increment for the period from 01-07-2017 to 30.06.2018 for purposes of pensionery benefits and accordingly re fix his pension and other pensionery benefits and pay the arrears along with admissible interest thereupon.

(ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.

(iii) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the grievance of the applicant may be considered in the light of the judgment(s) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the subsequent circular(s) issued by the DOP&T, within such stipulated period as may be directed by this Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant retired on 30.06.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation and that one annual increment, which fell due on the very next date i.e. 01st July of the relevant year, was not granted to him. It was contended that the applicant had completed the requisite qualifying service with satisfactory conduct and, therefore, denial of the said increment is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel placed reliance upon a catena of judgments pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, followed by various Hon’ble High Courts as well as different Benches of the Tribunal, and submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the said judgments. In this regard, it was also submitted that the applicant has submitted a representation, which is on record as Annexure A-2. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant is aggrieved by non-grant of notional increment despite the authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. decided on 11.04.2023 and the subsequent clarification dated 20.02.2025 in Union of India and Others vs. M. Siddaraj, pursuant to which the Department of Personnel and Training has issued an Office Memorandum, which is binding upon all departments for compliance of the aforesaid judgments.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue relating to grant of notional increment is no longer res integra and stands settled by authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that the respondents have no objection if the grievance of the applicant is considered strictly in accordance with the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the subsequent Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. However, he submitted that no positive direction may be issued at this stage unless and until the competent authority,