Court upheld the granting of a notional increment post-superannuation based on established precedent.

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)

1. The petition is preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 1.6.2020 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad (“Tribunal”, for short) which has granted one notional increment for the period from 1.7.2014 to 30.6.2015 and directed to fix the pay and re-fix pension and calculate as also to further grant the arrears within 10 weeks' from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

2. The facts, bereft of any details, are as follows:-

2.1 The respondent was appointed as Postal Assistant on 21.8.1976. He when retired was Deputy Postmaster (Counter) HSG-I in Rajkot HO. His date of superannuation is 30.6.2015. According to the respondent, in the department, there was no common date of increment. After the introduction of 6th Central Pay Commission, the Central Government fixed 1st July of every year as the date of increment by amending Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (“the Rules”, for short). The Rule 10 has spoken of the date of next increment in the revised pay structure, which has come into being from 1.1.2006.

2.2 As the respondent was not granted his yearly increment w.e.f. 1.7.2015 and the one granted to him was lastly on 1.7.2014, he made representation, which was not entertained. His pension since was fixed less by one increment, he made a request on 21.11.2018 to extend the benefit of annual increment w.e.f. 1.7.2015 as also give effect of the same in the pension.

2.3 He relied on the decision of the High Court of Madras rendered in the case of K. Ayyamperumal vs. The Registrar, CAT & Anr. on 15.9.2017 in W.P. No.15732 of 2017, against which, the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.22283/2018 was preferred, which was dismissed in limine by the Apex Court on 23.7.2018. Relying on the said judgment, the request is made to avail the very benefit of one more increment and consequential benefits in the pension.

2.4 The petitioner, since rejected the request of the respondent, it chose to approach the Tribunal, which has decided in Original Application No.145/2019 on 1.6.2020 in favour of the respondent, essentially relying on the decision of the High Court of Madras. The Tribunal has also referred to the decision of the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.5539/2019 & W.P. (C) No.10509/2019, keeping in mind the ratio decidendi of the decision of High Court of Madras in W.P. No.15732 of 2017 decided on 15.9.2017. The Tribunal accordingly, directed the release of increment which became due on the day following the day of the superannuation, i.e. 1st July, notionally.

3. This aggrieved the present petitioner, who has approached this court with the following prayers:-

“9...

(A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside the order impugned dated 01.06.2020;

(B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay operation, implementation and execution of the order impugned dated

01.06.2020;

(C) ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para-9(B) above be granted;

(D) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s as deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.”

4. We have heard learned Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval appearing for the petitioners, who has urged that the representation has been made belatedly by the respondent, who after his date of superannuation in the year 2015, i.e. 30.6.2015, approached vide his representation dated 21.11.2018 to extend him the benefit o