Employee entitled to annual increment due post-superannuation if earned for prior service period.

For the Appellants : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr.Arun Dhanapalan For the Respondent : Mr.K.C.Karl Marx JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 13.03.2025 made in W.P.No.18002 of 2024.

2. The respondent/writ petitioner was an employee and every year, the annual increment would be given from 01.03. Like that, whether he would be entitled to get such annual increment, which falls on 01.03.2024 or not was the question.

3. The reason being that, on the previous date, that is on

29.02.2024, the respondent/writ petitioner superannuated and retired and since the annual increment date falls on the next date, that is on 01.03.2025, such increment since has been denied, against which, he filed the said writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Writ Court through the order impugned.

4. We have heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr.Arun Dhanapalan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.K.C.Karl Marx, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

5. Since the annual increment due date falls every year only on 01.03., for the year 2024 also, since it falls on 01.03.2024 and such an increment would be given only for the work completed in the previous year, that is for the year 2023-24, that is, from 01.03.2024 to 29.02.2024, certainly, such increment would be accrued upon the respondent/employee even though he retired on superannuation on 29.02.2024.

6. In that view of the matter, the reason and the conclusion arrived by the learned Judge in allowing the said writ petition is not found to be infirm and therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this writ appeal, accordingly, it is rejected and hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. Eight weeks' time is given to comply the order passed by the Writ Court. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.27753 of 2025 is closed.

(R.S.K., J.) (S.S.A., J)

09.12.2025 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No (drm)

To:

1. The Chairman Chennai Port Authority Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

2. The Traffic Manager, Traffic Department Chennai Port Authority, Rajaji Salai Chennai – 600 001.

3. Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer Chennai Port Authority, Rajaji Salai Chennai – 600 001.

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

AND SHAMIM AHMED, J.

(drm)

09.12.2025 R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

AND SHAMIM AHMED, J.

[Order of the Court was made by R. SURESH KUMAR, J.]

This matter is taken up today under the caption “for being mentioned” at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

2. In paragraph Nos.3 and 5 of our order dated 09.12.2025, instead of 01.03.2024, it has been wrongly mentioned as 01.03.2025. Like that, instead of 01.03.2023, it has been wrongly mentioned as 01.03.2024, therefore, it needs correction.

3. In the fourth line of paragraph No.3, it must be 01.03.2024 and in the fifth line of paragraph No.5, it must be 01.03.2023 instead of 01.03.2024. These corrections shall be carried out and the corrected copy of the order be issued to the parties.