AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
16 paragraphs · 334 wordsHeard finally through Video Conferencing.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on the ground that the petitioner had retired on 30.06.2017, whereas the
increment was due to be paid on 01.07.2017 and thus, in the light of the judgment passed by the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal
vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. passed in W.P.No. 15732/2017 on 15.9.2017, the order passed by the Supreme Court in
SLP (Civil) Diary No.(s) 22283/2018 as well as the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad
Tiwari vs. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P. No.18030/2019 (Principal Seat), the petitioner is also entitled for the annual increment which fell
due on 01.07.2017.
Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that in case if the petitioner files a fresh application seeking payment
of the increment which fell due on 01.07.2017, then it shall be decided by the authorities after considering that whether as per the Service Rules, the
order passed by the Madras High Court, which was affirmed by Supreme Court would apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the State
Government or not. If it is found that the petitioner is also entitled for the payment of annual increment which fell due on 01.07.2017, then the payment
shall be released otherwise his representation shall be decided by passing a speaking order.
This petition has been filed on 24/06/2020. Thus, it is clear that the petition filed by petitioner is belated and suffers from delay and latches. However,
the increment will effect the pension of the petitioner, therefore, it can be said that the petitioner has recurring cause of action, accordingly, it is
directed that in case, if the petitioner is found to be eligible for additional increment, then he shall not be entitled for interest on the arrears.
With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.