N. Ramasamy vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—The petitioner submitted a letter on 19.06.2006 seeking voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and he was also allowed by the third respondent to retire on 30.06.2006. He claimed the annual increment payable on 01.07.2006 and also the consequential pensionary benefits. Though, the third respondent recommended the same to the second respondent, no order has been passed and therefore, the writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondents to sanction and disburse the regular annual increment for the past services rendered by the petitioner from 01.07.2005 to 30.06.2006 and consequently revise the pension, pensionary benefits and pay the arrears with the interest to the petitioner as per the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the increment payable on 01.07.2006 was in respect of the service rendered by the petitioner for the previous year and considering the same, this Court in W.P. No. 14401 of 2005 dated 22.02.2012, between V.P. Somasundaram v. The Secretary to Government, Finance Department, following the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, held that the employees are entitled to get the increment which was declared on the next day of their retirement, as the same was declared for the service rendered by the employees for the previous year, during which they were employed. Therefore, the petitioner herein requested that the respondents may be directed to give the increment payable on 01.07.2006 to the petitioner and also consequently re-calculate the pensionary benefits on that basis.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

The learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2006 and the increment was declared on 01.07.2006 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of increment declared on 01.07.2006.

I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate. Though, the increment was declared on 01.07.2006, it is not in dispute that the said increment was declared for the service rendered by the petitioner for the previous year. Admittedly, the increment declared on 01.07.2006 was in respect of the service rendered by the petitioner for the previous year and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the increment declared on 01.07.2006. As a matter of fact, in Secretary Ministry of Personnel, Pension and Others Vs. R. Malakondaiah and Another, , a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has considered said issue and has held that the employees are entitled for increment which was declared on the next day of their retirement date that too for the service rendered by them for the previous year.

Considering the same and the fact that the third respondent is also recommended the case of the petitioner to the second respondent and the increment sought for by the petitioner was for the service rendered by him during the previous year, the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of the increment payable on 01.07.2006 and consequently, his pensionary benefits has also to be re-calculated.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.