IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10751 of 2020 UNION OF INDIA Versus LAXMANBHAI KALABHAI CHAVDA

 

 

 C/SCA/10751/2020   ORDER

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10751 of 2020

==========================================================

UNION OF INDIA Versus LAXMANBHAI KALABHAI CHAVDA

==========================================================

Appearance: MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3

for the Respondent(s) No. 1

==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI and

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN Date : 27/01/2021

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)

 

1. The petition is preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 1.6.2020 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad (“Tribunal”,for short) which has granted one notional increment for the period from 1.7.2014 to 30.6.2015 and directed to fix the pay and re-fix pension and calculate as also to further grant the arrears within 10 weeks' from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

2. The facts, bereft of any details, are as follows:-

2.1 The respondent was appointed as Postal Assistant on 21.8.1976. He when retired was Deputy Postmaster (Counter) HSG-I in Rajkot HO. His date of superannuation is 30.6.2015. According to the respondent, in the department, there was no common date of increment. After the introduction of 6th Central

Pay Commission, the Central Government fixed 1st July of every year as the date of increment by amending Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (“the Rules”, for short). The Rule 10 has spoken of the date of next

increment in the revised pay structure, which has come into being from 1.1.2006.

 

2.2 As the respondent was not granted his yearly increment w.e.f. 1.7.2015 and the one granted to him was lastly on 1.7.2014, he made representation, which was not entertained. His pension since was fixed less by one increment, he made a request on 21.11.2018 to extend the benefit of annual increment w.e.f. 1.7.2015 as also give effect of the same in the pension.

 

2.3 He relied on the decision of the High Court of Madras rendered in the case of K. Ayyamperumal vs. The Registrar,CAT & Anr. on 15.9.2017 in W.P. No.15732 of 2017, against which, the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.22283/2018

was preferred, which was dismissed in limine by the Apex Court on 23.7.2018. Relying on the said judgment, the request is made to avail the very benefit of one more increment and consequential benefits in the pension.

 

2.4 The petitioner, since rejected the request of the respondent, it chose to approach the Tribunal, which has decided in Original Application No.145/2019 on 1.6.2020 in favour of the respondent, essentially relying on the decision of the High Court of Madras. The Tribunal has also referred to the decision of the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.5539/2019 & W.P. (C) No.10509/2019, keeping in mind the ratio decided of the decision of High Court of Madras in W.P. No.15732 of 2017 decided on 15.9.2017. The Tribunal accordingly, directed the release of increment which became due on the day following the day of the superannuation, i.e. 1st July, notionally.

 

3. This aggrieved the present petitioner, who has approached this court with the following prayers:-

 

(A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside the order impugned dated 01.06.2020;

 

(B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition,

the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay operation, implementation and execution of the order impugned dated 01.06.2020;

 

(C) ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para-9(B) above be granted;

 

(D) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s as deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.”

 

4. We have heard learned Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval appearing for the petitioners, who has urged that the representation has been made belatedly by the respondent, who after his date of superannuation in the year 2015, i.e. 30.6.2015, approached vide his representation dated 21.11.2018 to extend him the benefit of annual increment w.e.f. 1.7.2015. This belated approach on his part is also one of the grounds which would differentiate his factual matrix from those matters which have been decided before the

High Court of Madras and High Court of Delhi. He, however, fairly admitted that the matter when travelled from W.P. 15732/2017 from the High Court of Madras and challenged by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.22283/2018

before the Apex Court, the same had been dismissed in limine on 23.7.2018. The very decision has been followed by High Court of Delhi, which according to him also have been challenged by the Union of India before the Apex Court.

 

5. He has taken us through Rule 10 of the Rules, which speaks of uniform date of annual increment, which is 1st July of every year. It says that the employees completing six months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st July, will be eligible to be granted the increment. The first increment, after fixation of pay as per the said Rules is on 1.1.2006 in the revised pay structure which shall need to be granted on 1.7.2006 for those employees for whom the date of next increment was between 1.7.2006 to 1.1.2007.

 

6. We notice the interpretation of Rule 10 of the Rules made by High Court of Madras in W.P. No.15372/2017, where the Court held from the factual details that the employee before it since had completed one full year service as on 30.6.2013, i.e. the date of which he was superannuated, but the increment fell due on 1.7.2013, on which date he was not in services and therefore, it interpreted that he shall have to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment fell on the next day of his retirement. Accordingly, the court had allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner before the High Court of Madras be given one

notional increment for the period from 1.7.2012 to 30.6.2013, on his having completed one full year of service.

 

6.1 In instant case, taking a cue from the very decision, the applicant since was superannuated on 30.6.2015, the Tribunal had noticed that his increment also fell due on 1.7.2015. On 1.7.2015, since he had completed entire previous year of

service, he was eligible to receive the increment notionally and accordingly, had directed granting of one notional increment for the period from 1.7.2014 to 30.6.2015 and fix his pay and re-fix his pension consequentially.

 

7. We see no error in the order of the Tribunal. It rightly had followed the decision of the High Court of Madras, which interpreted Rule 10 of the Rules and which had been confirmed by the Apex Court. The belated approach on the part of the

respondent by making a formal representation in the year 2018, cannot be the ground for the Court to reject the application nor can that be a ground for interpreting differently Rule 10 that has been interpreted by both the High Courts.

 

7.1 We also find by looking at it independently that the interpretation made in case of the respondent is in consonance with the decision of High Court Madras, which has been also confirmed by the Apex Court, this petition deserves no

entertainment.

 

8. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

 

(SONIA GOKANI, J)

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)

BINOY B PILLAI