Sasikumar S Deputy Director (A) (Retired) vs Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute For Medical Sciences & Technology Represented By Its Director Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram � 695011 & Ors

K.Haripal, Member J

The applicant is a former Deputy Director superannuated from the service of the first respondent on 30.6.2014. He had claimed his next increment which fell due on 1.7.2014 and consequential benefits in the pensionary benefits. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Annexure A1 which stands confirmed by Annexure A-2 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P(Civil) Diary No.22283 of 2018. Basing on the same, the applicant gave Annexure A-3 representation. In response to Annexure A-3 representation, by Annexure A-4 communication he has been informed that, pending decision of the Ministry of Finance, his request cannot be considered. Aggrieved by the non-feasance of the respondents in not taking a decision on his representation, he has approached the Tribunal praying for a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of Annexures A1 and A5 judgments to the applicant. He has also relied on Annexure A-5 common order of this Tribunal in O.A No.180/1055/2018 and connected matters, rendered on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP(C) No.15732 of 2017 – P.Ayyamperumal v. The Registrar & Ors, Annexure A1.

The respondents contested the case. Relying on the decision of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal, they maintained that they are not bound to grant increment to the applicant who had retired on 30 June 2014 on the premise that on 1st July 2014 the applicant was not in service. Thus they have prayed for dismissing the O.A.

The applicant has filed a rejoinder contending that dehors the decision of the Apex Court or the Madras High Court, Annexure A-7 order issued by the first respondent alone is sufficient to uphold the claim of the applicant. Referring to clause 8 of Annexure A-7, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is entitled to get increment on 1st July 2014 irrespective of the question that he had retired on 30 June 2014. According to the learned counsel, basing on Annexure A-7, Annexure A8 fixation was granted to the applicant with effect from 1st July, in 2007.

I heard the learned counsel for the applicant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the applicant has taken me a copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. v. C.P.Mundinamani & Ors (AIR 2023 SC 1956) wherein the dicta in P.Ayyamperumal and that of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Thus a similarly placed person who retired on 30th June of the year is entitled to get increment on 1st July of the year. That means, Annexure R1(a) stands vacated by Annexure A-6 order of the Supreme Court. In other words, the controversy has been finally settled by virtue of the order of the Apex Court in C.P.Mundinamani cited supra.

I have also come across the order of this Tribunal dated 23.6.2023 in O.A 500/2020 granting similar relief, based on C.P.Mundinamani.

In the circumstances, applicant is entitled to get increment on 1.7.2014. Ordered accordingly. The respondents are directed to release the increment due to the applicant on 01.07.2014 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pension. Appropriate orders shall be passed and arrears due shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The O.A is disposed of as above. No costs.

(Dated this the 24th day of July, 2023)