$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 20^th March, 2026 + W.P.(C) 12216/2024 & CM APPL. 50832/2024, CM APPL.

50833/2024 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Suruchi Mittal, SPC for Union of India with Mr.

Shubham Soni, Adv.

versus NARESH KUMAR GUPTA .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN J U D G M E N T (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present Petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 3071/2023, whereby the learned Tribunal granted the Respondents the benefit of increment on the basis of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. v. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: -

“ 4. …………………………. Accordingly, in view of the above quoted deliberations, the instant OA is allowed at the admission stage itself. Respondents are hereby directed to issue one notional increment to the applicants and further issue revised PPO(s) in this regard. However, arrear payment of only three years preceding to the date of filing of this original application shall be made to the applicants @6% simple interest per annum. The said exercise must be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order without fail.”

2. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners contends that the Respondent was working/posted as A.F.A. at Baroda House, Head Quarters' Office, Northern Railway, New Delhi and he superannuated on 30.06.2021 and the increment was due to him only on 01.07.2021 i.e. a day after the Respondent retired. Hence, the learned Tribunal has erred in relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. (supra). It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in granting interest @ 6 p.a. which was not prayed for by the Applicant in his O.A.

3. This Court has considered the submissions and it emerges that the present issue has been squarely covered by the above judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. (supra) was dealing with the case where the employees, who had retired one day earlier than the date on which the annual increment became payable, and despite completion of one year of service preceding the due date of retirement and having earned one annual increment, the increment was denied on the ground that the date on which the increment accrued, i.e., the 366^th day, the employee was not in service. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the increment is earned for rendering their services for one year preceding the date of retirement and only because the benefit accrues on a day after the retirement, the benefit cannot be denied. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinunder: -

“ 16. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that as the increment has accrued on the next day on which it is earned and therefore, even in a case where an employee has earned the increment one day prior to his retirement but he is not in service the day on which the increment is accrued is concerned, while considering the aforesaid issue, the object and purpose of grant of annual increment is required to be considered.

17. A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one-year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a timescale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said t