IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

and

W.M.P.No.25866 of 2024

1.K.Egambaram 2.A.E.J.Baskaran

3.A.Varghese

4.J.Pushpalatha

5.P.Thiagarajan …. Petitioners

Vs

1.The Chairperson No. 1, Rjaji Salai,

Chennai Port Authority,

Chennai -600 001.

2.The Secretary,

No. 1, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai Port Authority,

Chennai -600 001.

3.The Chief Mechanical Engineer,

E & M Department,

Chennai Port Authority,

No. 1, Rajaji Salai, Chennai -600 001.

4.The Financial Advisor &

Chief Accounts Officer (FA & CAJ), Chennai Port Authority, No. 1, Rajaji Salai, Chennai -600 001.

5.The Traffic Manager, Traffic Department, Chennai Port Authority, No. 1, Rajaji Salai, Chennai -600 001. …. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, (i) to call for the records of the respondents in F.No. A7/128/2020/T dated 22.04.2024, in the case of 1^st to 3^rd petitioners, No. Estt./2932/2023/F dated 02.06.2023 in the case of 4^th petitioner and CME/A1/0169/2024/MEE dated 27.05.2024 in the case of 5^th petitioner and quash the said orders and consequently direct the respondents to grant annual increment to the petitioners (ii) to treat the retirement dates of the 1^st petitioner as on 01.01.2017, 2^nd petitioner as on 01.01.2021, 3^rd petitioner as on 01.04.2020, 4^th petitioner as on 01.03.2023 and 5^th petitioner as on 01.01.2015 and grant them all the consequential benefits including the pensionary benefits.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Ayyamperumal For Respondents : Mr.Sithra Sarangan

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders dated

22.04.2024, 02.06.2023 and 27.05.2024 passed by the fifth respondent, thereby rejecting the request made by the petitioner seeking grant of notional increment on completion of twelve months of service.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the materials available on record.

3.The petitioners are retired Assistant Superintendents. The first petitioner is retired from service under Special VRS on 31.12.2016. Thereafter, he found that his retirement benefits was not calculated by taking into account the full year period from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016, since the first petitioner was not in service on 01.01.2017 and he retired from service on 31.12.2016. Insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, he retired from service on 31.12.2020 and the period from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2020 was not taken into account while calculating his retirement benefits. Insofar as the third petitioner is concerned, he retired from service on 31.03.2020 and the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 was not taken into account while calculating his retirement benefits. The fourth petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2023 and the period from 01.03.2022 to 28.02.2023 was not taken into account for the purpose of calculating his retirement benefits. The fifth petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2014 and the period from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014 was not taken into account while calculating his retirement benefits.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the denial of increment for the completed period of one year was challenged by the petitioners by submitting representations, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.NO.8440 of 2011, wherein similarly placed persons had succeeded. He further submitted that a similar issue was also raised in W.P.No.15732 of 2017, which ultimately went upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and the orders passed by this Court granting one annual increment was confirmed. He further pointed out that One S.Manivannan, who retired from service, filed writ petition in W.P.No.15732 of 2017 and the same was allowed by this Court. However, no appeal has been filed as against the said order. Therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to similar benefits.

5.A perusal of t