AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
The present O.A. has been filed by the applicants, who retired from Government service on 30th June in different years, seeking revision of their pension and pensionary benefits after granting one notional increment due to them on 1st July of the respective years of their retirement, in terms of the Judgment dated 11.04.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 in the matter of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. Since the representations preferred by the applicants seeking similar benefits were not acceded to by the respondents on the ground that they were not the parties in the proceedings, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by filing the present O.A.
At the outset, Mr. Suresh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the O.A. is squarely covered by the Judgment dated 11.04.2023 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. (supra). The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
“6.7 Similar view has also been expressed by different High Courts, namely, the Gujarat High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Orissa High Court and the Madras High Court. As observed hereinabove, to interpret Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations in the manner in which the appellants have understood and/or interpretated would lead to arbitrariness and denying a government servant the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned while rendering specified period of service with good conduct and efficiently in the last preceding year. It would be punishing a person for no fault of him. As observed hereinabove, the increment can be withheld only by way of punishment or he has not performed the duty efficiently. Any interpretation which would lead to arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness should be avoided. If the interpretation as suggested on behalf of the appellants and the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is accepted, in that case it would tantamount to denying a government servant the annual increment which he has earned for the services he has rendered over a year subject to his good behaviour. The entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day. In the present case the word “accrue” should be understood liberally and would mean payable on the succeeding day. Any contrary view would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness and denying a government servant legitimate one annual increment though he is entitled to for rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiently and therefore, such a narrow interpretation should be avoided. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria (supra); the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal (supra); and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra). We do not approve the contrary view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh (supra) and the decisions of the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Pavithran (O.P.(CAT) No. 111/2020 decided on 22.11.2022) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Hari Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020).
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. I.A. No. 149091/2022 stands disposed of in terms of the above.”
The learned counsel further submitted that this Tribunal has already adjudicated the issue in various similar O.As., i.e., in O.A. No.776/2019 and batch (including O.A. No. 1616/2019 in the case of Sanat Kr. Ray) decided on 15.07.2021 and recently in O.A. No. 1857/2021 decided on 29.05.2023, and the similar benefits have been rendered to the applicants therein. To strengthen his arguments, he also shared copies of the revised PPOs dated 12.02.2024 and 14.03.2024 in respect of S/Shri Sanat Kr. Ray and Ms. Vidhula Kaul, w/o Late C.L. Kaul, respectively and orders dated 01.12.2023 and 16.11.2023 in respect of S/Shri R.S. Dagar and Surinder Kumar, the applicants therein, whereby similar benefits have been rendered to them, in compliance of the orders passed by this Tribunal. He also highlighted that the date of superannuation of Shri R.S. Dagar is 30.06.2008.
Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that the orders passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 776/2019 and batch decided on 15.07.2021 and in O.A. No.1857/2021 dated 09.05.2023 have attained finality, in terms of Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment dated 11.04.2023. Accordingly, the applicants are entitled for one notional increment accrued on the last date of their service.
Per contra, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments made by the learned counsel for the applicants, by submitting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court adjudicated the matter in April, 2023, while the applicants retired on 30th June in the years 2007, 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2019. The applicants are fence-sitters and approached this Tribunal after the aforesaid judgment dated 11.04.2023 of the Hon’ble Apex Court. He further argued that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court can only be applied prospectively and not retrospectively; unless and until it is directed so, similar benefits cannot be extended to them on the ground of parity. This question has not been decided by any court of law as of now and if the Tribunal allows the O.A., it will cause huge financial burden on the Government.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings/judgments available on record.
Since the issue involved already stands settled upto the level of the Hon'ble Apex Court in The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. (supra), already quoted hereinabove, which is subsequently followed by various Hon’ble High Courts as well as various Benches of this Tribunal and also implemented in a large number of cases, I find no cause to reconsider the issue or to take any divergent view and thus the present O.A. deserves to be allowed.
However, considering the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and keeping in view the recent orders passed in similar cases by various courts of law, more specifically, Order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Diary No.45616/2023 in the matter of I.C.A.R. vs. Dr. Rajinder Prashad & Ors. and Order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Writ-A No.2181 of 2024 in Ravi Prakash & Ors. vs. State of U.P. by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, I deem it appropriate to restrict the arrears payable to the applicants for a period of three years backward from the date of filing of the instant O.A.
Resultantly, the O.A. stands allowed with a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of one notional increment to the applicants with effect from 1st July of the respective years of their retirement in the light of Judgment dated 11.04.2023 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. (supra), and to issue appropriate orders/revised PPOs refixing their pension as well as pensionary benefits, after satisfying other requirements/conditions under the Rules. However, the applicants are entitled for arrears for a period of three years prior to the date of filing of this O.A., i.e. 09.11.2023. The respondents are further directed to release all admissible arrears accrued to the applicants, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which they are liable to pay interest at the applicable GPF rates for the delayed payment of arrears.
However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.