Representations seeking notional increment and revision of consequential pensionary benefits who retired on 30th June or 31st December after completing one year of service – Clarification by DoPT on representations

Representations seeking notional increment and revision of consequential pensionary benefits who retired on 30th June or 31st December after completing one year of service – Clarification by DoPT on representations

Dy.No.2455223/22-Estt. (Pay-I)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training)
Establishment (Pay-I) Section
***

North Block, New Delhi
Dated 22 November, 2022

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Representations seeking notional increment and revision of consequential pensionary benefits -reg.

The undersigned is directed to refer to your emails dated 20.08.2022, 30.08.2022, 07.09.2022, 12.09.2022 and 09.11.2022 regarding the grant of notional increment to the officials retired on 30th June after completing one year of service.

2. In the wake of recent orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases involving claims for grant of notional increment on 1st July/1st January to the Central Government employees having their date of retirement on 30th June/31st December respectively, the subject matter is under examination, in consultation with the nodal Ministries/Departments concerned.

(Shukdeo Sah)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Tel. No.011-23040489

To

Shri Ramsahay Vijaya Vargia,
E-mail ID: rsvijayvargia[at]gmail.com.

  High Court & Supreme Court judgments in Case of Notional increment to those retired/retiring on 30th June of the year

sSr. No.	Eight High courtof Madras / Lucknow/Delhi/Bombay  Judgment	Eleven Supreme Court SLP/Review Petition/ Civil Appeal Dismissal Order/ Judgment
1	Division bench  ,  High court of Madras ,  Bench Chennai  in the Matter of Director of high school  Education v/s  Sh. N. S. RangaswamyWrit Appeal No. 2095 / 2011 by  Judgment Dated  10—11—2011 dismissed the above writ  appeal , & Confirmed the order dated 3rd. August , 2011  passed by Hon,ble Single Judge  , which filed by the State of Tamilnadu  against the  S.B. judgment  passed  in  W.P.No. 22589 / 2010.   The reasons recorded by single Judge in his Judgment  at Para No –12 to allowed the writ petition is  reproduced as under ( see  2011 WLR  728 ):--- ………It is pertinent to note that as far as the Tamilnadu state is concerned, there is no rule which stipulates that an employee must continue in service for getting the benefit of increment for the services already rendered by him. This court is of the considered view  that though the petitioner  was not in service on the due date for the payment  of increment  i.e., on 01- 01 – 1996 , still he can seek benefit  of payment of increment  for the completed period of one year service   i.e. , from 01 – 01—1995 to 31- 12 – 1995  even one equitable  grounds .  Therefore , this court has no hesitation to hold that  the petitioner having  rendered the service for one year  i.e. , from  o1—01—1995 to  31—12—1995 , his accrued right  cannot be denied . 14. With this direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs	Director of High School Education v/s Sh.N.S.  Rangaswamy SLP (cc) No. 10842/2013 Diary No. 15176/2013 Dismissal Order datedo4—07—2013 reproduced as under :---                                             CORAM   Hon. Jus. Sh. Anil  R. Dave                                                             Hon. Jus. Sh. A.K. Sikari (1)      Delay condoned. (2)      Looking to the peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it proper to interfere with the impugned order. (3)      The special leave petition is, accordingly. Dismissed.
2	Division Bench Judgment of High Court of Madras in the Matter of State of TamilNadu V/s shri M. Balasubramaniam W.A. No 1940/2012 dated 20, September 2012 reproduced as under(See CDJ 2012 MHC 6525): --- 2. Indisputably, the respondent/writ petitioner completed one full year of service from 01—04—2002 to 31—03—2003, which entitled him the benefit of increment, which accrued to him during that period.  (3) In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. There is no merit in the writ appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost.	State of Tamilnadu v/s Sh. M. Balasubramanian SLP(Civil) No. 11662/2013 Diary No. 4223/2013 dated  08.07.2013 reproduced as under ;---       CORAM   Hon. Jus. Sh.  G. S. Singhvi                                           Hon. Jus. Sh. Gopala  Gowda   (1) Delay condoned. (2) The special leave petition is dismissed
3	Service bench no. 484/2010 High court of Allahabad bench Lucknow D.B. Judgment dated 3rd .May 2017in the matter of UOI v/s Sh. SakharamTirpathy reproduced as under ;- Hon'ble SudhirAgarwal,J. Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II,J. 1. The increment fell due to applicant-respondent, Sakha Ram, on 01.01.2002 and he attained age of superannuation on 31.12.2001. Respondents, therefore, denied increment stating that applicant-respondent has retired, therefore, increment was not admissible. Relying on judgments of Supreme Court in S. Banerjee Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1990 SC 285 and Union of India Vs. P.N. Menon and others AIR 1994 SC 2221, Tribunal has held that last day of month i.e. 31st December was working day of employee concerned and he retired on the next date, hence the benefit of increment cannot be denied on the date incumbent is retired since it fell due on that day. Tribunal has also referred to the relevant provisions showing that in order to claim increment on completion of one year's service; Rule does not say that on the date when increment fell due, incumbent must be continued in service. 2. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for petitioner neither provided any assistance nor placed relevant provisions for our perusalwhich are necessary for adjudication of dispute. 3. In these circumstances, we dismiss the writ petition.	Union of India v/s Shri SakharamTirpathySlp diary No. 6468/2019 dismissed on dated 29—03—2019 is reproduced as under;---                                         CORAM:  Hon.Jus. Sh. Uday.Umesh.Lalit                                                         Hon. Jus. Ms. Indu Malhotra   We have heard Ms. Madhvi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioner-Union of India. There is delay of 566 days in filing the special leave Petition. We do not see any reason to condone the delay. The special leave petition is dismissed on delay, keeping all the questions of law open. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
4	Division bench Judgment of Madras High Court in the matter of U.O.I. V/S Shri P. Ayyam Perusal WP(C) No 15732 / 2017 Dated 15- 09- 2017 reproduced as under :---- 7. The Petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30- 06- 2013,but the increment fell due on 01- 07- 2013, on which date he was not in service . In view of the above Judgment of this court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next date of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent- Tribunal dated 21-03-2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01—07-2012 to 30-06-2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01-07-2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs.	Union of India v/s Sh. P. AyyamPerumal IRS Retd. SLP(Civil) No. 22008/2018 Diary No. (s)22283/2018 dated 23.07.2018 reproduced as under ;---               CORAM  Hon. Jus. Sh. Madan B. Lokur Hon.Jus. Sh. Deepak Gupta   1) Delay condoned. (2) On the facts, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the high court of judicature at Madras. (3) The special leave petition is dismissed.                                                         -      -          -         -          -    x   -   -    -    -     - - - - x - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Union of India v/s Sh. P. AyyamPerumal IRSRetd. Review Pet. No. (c) 1731/2019 Diary No.23721/2019 dated 08.08.2019 reproduced as under  ;---                CORAM.  Hon. Jus. Sh. N. V. Ramana                                                    Hon. Jus. Sh. Deepak Gupta   (1)Delay in filing the review petition is condoned. (2) The review petition has been filed against order dated 23rd. July 2018, where by the special leave petition was dismissed. (3) We have considered the review petition on merits. In our opinion no case for review of order dated 23-07-2018 is made out. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed on merits. (4) Pending application filed on the matter also stands disposed of.
5	Division Bench  Judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of Shri Gopal Singh Retd CISF v/s UOI  WP(C) No.10509 /2019 dated 23—01—2020 reproduced as under  :- 8.  More recently, this court in its decision dated 13th. January, 2020 in WP(C ) No. 5539/2019  ( ArunChhibber v/s Union of India ) has discussed  the judgment in P. Ayyamperumal at some length in the context of the prayer of an officer of  the Central reserve Police Force   (CRPF ) who had retired on 30th. June, 2007 for notional increment. The court rejected the contention of the Respondents therein that the Judgment in P. Ayyamperumal had to be treated as one that was in Person am and not in rem. In relation to the Respondent’s attempt to distinguish the applicability of the judgment in P. Ayyamperumal to CRPF personnel, the court observed as under:-    “5. The court finds that the only difference, if any, between P. Ayyamperumal (supra) and this case is that the former was an employee of the Central Government, whereas here the petitioner superannuated from the Central Reserve Police Force. The court, there, finds no reasons to deny the petitioner same relief granted to Mr P. Ayyamperumal by the Madras High Court. The similarly in the two cases is that here too, the Petitioner has completed  one year of service , just one day prior to 1st. July , 2007 .” 9. The position here as regards CISF personnel can be no different and it was not, therefore, open to the Respondents to refuse to grant to the petitioner notional increment merely because he superannuated a day earlier than the day fixed by the CPC for such benefit to accrue . 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 3rd. May, 2019 is set aside. A direction is issued  to the Respondent’s to grant the notional increment to the petitioner with effect from 1st. July ,2019. The petitioner’s pension  will  consequentially be re-fixed . the appropriate orders will be issued  and arrears of pension will be paid to the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks, falling which  the respondent’s would be liable to simple interest at 6 0/0 per annum on the arrears  of period of delay.	Union of India v/s Gopal Singh (CISF) SLP (C) No.   12227/2020 diary No. 13959/2020 dated 13.10.2020 reproduced as under ;---                                 CORAM. Hon. Jus. Sh. N. V. Ramana                                                 Hon. Jus. Sh. Suryakant                                                 Hon. Jus.  Sh. Aniruddha  Bose   (1)Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the record.  (2)Delay condoned (3) We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the high court. (4)The SLP accordingly, dismissed. (5) As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.   Union of India v/s Gopal Singh (CISF) Review Petition (C) No.885/2022  diary No. 6844/2021 dated 26.07.2022 reproduced as under ;---                                CORAM Hon. Jus. Sh. N.V. Ramana                                                Hon. Jus. Sh. Suryakant                                                 Hon. Jus. Sh. Aniruddha Bose   Delay condoned. The instant Petition for review has been filed by the Petitioner against vide this Court’s order dated. 13.10.2020. Having Carefully perused the petition for review & the paper s connected herewith we do not find any reason for reconsideration of the orders impugned. The Review petition accordingly dismissed.   Note: --       (Personal Comments) The above Review Petition Diary No. 6844/2021 dismissed on 26, July, 2022 was filed on 10th. March, 2021 in reference issues raised by CBEC /  DOPT, UOI in his circular dated  18th. OCT, 2019  , 11, Nov.2019 & 3rd. February, 2021 (Copy attached) & SLP diary No. 6468/2019 Judgment orders    dated 29th. March, 2019 for decide the Law Point by UOI without any need. Because this have been already done.         But  Hon,ble Apex Court Larger bench & another  seven  benches had  already been approved /  confirmed  the  Madras /ALLAHABAD/ Delhi / BOMBAY , Bench Aurangabad /Gujarat  High courts  six   Judgments of  notional  increment due after retirement  by dismissal  of  six   SLP’s & one Review Petition  orders  on   dated    4th. July, 2013,      8th July. 2013, 23th. July, 2018, 29TH, March,2019 ,  8th. August2019, 13th. October, 2020,  12th.  January 2022 & 30,Sept.,2022 on the facts & Merits with reason orders i.e. question at issue                                    In which High court of Madras/ Allahabad  / Delhi / Bombay, Bench Aurangabad ,Gujarat  indisputably decided this law point that the respondent/ writ petitioner completed one full year of service on the day of retirement, which entitled him the benefit of increment, though the date of increment falls on the next date of his retirement on which an employee was not in service, which accrued to him during that period for the purposes of pensionary benefits, under article 141 Constitution of India by merge of law as “REM”( See all Judgments refer in this Chart) The  FR – 24 & FR- 26 and Rule – 10 is Uniform rule  in Union of India  with  Rajasthan service Rules1961 with, Rule - 29 &  31 (a)  & rule – 14 NPS_2008 & all other States for grant of  increment i.e. 365 days duty period prescribed without stipulates of condition of continue in service after retirement .This has also mentioned by D.B. Allahabad High court in the Judgment Dated o3rd. May, 2017 UOI v/s Sh. Sakharam WP No.484/2010.     So Hon, ble three Judges larger Bench dismissed the Second Review Petition diary No.6844/2021 which filed by UOI illegally, because apex court larger bench have not found any error & need of any other law point in his dismissal order dated 13-10-2020 passed in SLP Diary No.13959/2020.  Further on next day i.e.  27th. July, 2022 another bench of  Hon,ble  Apex Court D.B. also dismissed the another  identical similar nature third Review Petition Diary No.10700/2022 filed by State of Maharashtra v/s Shri  Prakash tulshiram  by reason order on this notional increment issue .Now nothing is disputed on the part of apex court .   As per Para -4 page – 8 of Sh. Safi Mohd .Judgment dated 1st. December ,2021 this has been held that If Shri P. AyyamPerumal case dismissed on Merits then D.B. Raj. High Court  is Bound to comply the apex court order. See above Review Petition Order dated 08, Aug.2019 of Shri P. Ayyamperumal which has been dismissed on merits.
6	Division bench of Bombay High court ,Aurangabad Bench  Writ petition no.6396 of 2020 Dated 24 June, 2021 Prakash Tulshiram V/s the State of Maharashtra and others reproduced as under ;--- 5. The judgment of the Madras High Court inP.Ayyamperumal (supra) was carried in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.22283/2018. By order dated 23.07.2018, the Honorable Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition. 6. There is no dispute that Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 is identical to the amended Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 in relation to the uniformity in annual increments. 7. Considering the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. As the petitioner is superannuated on 30.06.2019, we hold that he would be entitled to the last annual increment, which he has been deprived of and the respondents shall, accordingly, calculate the said monetary benefits expeditiously so as to be paid to the petitioner on or before 30.09.2021. So also, as the grant of this annual increment would affect his pension, gratuity, earned leave, commutation benefits, etc., the respondents would recalculate the same and make the payment of arrears on or before 30.09.2021 and shall ensure that the revised pension is also paid to the petitioner accordingly.		State of Maharashtra & others. V/s Prakash TulshiramChaudhari SLP (c) no(s). 206/2022 diary no. 32000/2021 dated 12-01-2022 reproduced as under ;---                                                      CORAM. Hon. Jus. Sh. S.  Abdul Nazeer.                                                                   Hon Jus.  Sh. Krishna  Murari We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Thespecial leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.Pending application also Stands disposed of.          ---------------------------x-------------------------x------------------------- State of Maharashtra & others V/s Prakash Tulshiramchaudhary    Review Petition Diary No. 10700/2022 & ( C) No.00711/2022 dismissed on dated 27 – 07- 2022 Reproduced as under;---                                                                           CORAM   Hon. Jus. S. Abdul Nazeer                                                                 Hon. Jus. Krishna Murari Application for oral hearing is rejected. We have gone through the review petition and the connected paper’s filed therewith. We are convinced that the order of which review has been sought, does not suffer from any error apparent warranting its reconsideration. The review petition is accordingly dismissed
7	SB Jud. dated 11, August 2022 of Sh. Takhat Singh v/s State of Gujarat   High court of Gujarat reproduced as under ;-- 11) Thus, in light of the law enunciated by the Division Bench ofMadras High Court, which is confirmed by the Apex Court, the communication dated 06.01.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. 12) The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of one increment to the petitioner and accordingly revise his pension. Appropriate order shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Rule is made absolute. DB Judgment of Gujarat High Court Dated 27th. Aprial,2022 is reproduced as underin the matter of State of Gujarat v/s Shri Thakhat Singh ;--- 5.2 The view taken by the Madras High Court inP.Ayyamperumal (supra) and by Delhi High Court in Gopal Singh (supra) and other High Courts as above, holding that the government servant is entitled to increment becoming payable on 1 st July, even though he has retired on 30 th June, is required to be accepted. This court is in concurrence with the view taken in the aforesaid decisions by the Madras High Court and the Delhi High Court and the reasons supplied therein. This court is unable to subscribe to the converse view taken by High Courts of Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan. 7. The present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim orders stand vacated. The directions issued in paragraph No.12 of the order of learned Single Judge regarding grant of benefits to the petitioner- respondent herein, the same shall be granted within six weeks from today and the direction shall be complied with. In view of disposal of the main appeal, the Civil Application will not survive. Accordingly, it is disposed of		State of Gujarat v/s Shri Takhat Singh Retd Driver SLP diary No.26295/2022 (c) No. 17562/2022 dismissed on dated 30-09-2022 is reproduced as under ;--             CORAM Hon. Jus. M. R. Shah                                                             Hon. Jus. Krishna Murari   Delay condoned. Though the issue involved in the present special Leave Petition is at large in other matters, as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court is complied with and the respondent No. 1 has been paid the revised pension and the difference is only Rs. 700/-- p.m. in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and keeping the question of law open, we refuse to entertain the present Special Leave Petition.      THE Special Leave Petition stands dismissed / disposed of. Pending application stands disposed of.
8	Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench, Lucknow order dated 22-03—2022 passed in Leave to Appeal O.A. No. 366/2020 Judgment dated 12-08—2021 Reproduced as Under;--   Heard Ms. Amrita Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel for the applicants – Union of India & Others who were respondents in the Original Application No. 366 of 2020. Applicants have filed this application seeking leave to file Appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2021 of this Tribunal in Original Application No. 366 of 2020. By means of this order the Original Application has been allowed and respondents have been directed to give one notional increment to the applicant for the period from 01.07.2013 to 30.06.2014 treating he has completed one full year of service. Upon hearing submissions of Ld. Counsel for the applicants – Union of India & Others we find that no point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision so that leave may be granted.In the result, Leave to Appeal is dismissed. Judgment dated 12-08-2021 Delivered in O.A. No. 366/2020 UOI v/s Shri Sarvesh Kumar Retd  Air Force Reproduced as under;--- 8. In view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court, upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court we are of the view that since the applicant had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2014, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2014, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement.   9. In view of the above, the Original Application No. 366 of 2020 deserves to be allowed, hence allowed. The impugned order dated 04.11.2019, annexed as Annexure No. A-1 with Original Application, is set aside. The applicant shall be given one notionalincrement for the period from 01.07.2013 to 30.06.2014, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2014, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. The respondents are directed to issue fresh Corrigendum P.P.O. accordingly. The respondents are further directed to give effect to this order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Default will invite interest @ 8% per annum till the actual payment		Civil Appeal No. (S) 7970/2022 & Diary No. 28107/2022 in the matter of UOI v/s Shri  Sarvesh Kumar dismissed on Dated 31—10—2022  reproduced as under ;---                                          CORAM, Jus. Shri S.Abdul Nazeer.                                                         Jus. Shri v. Rama Subramanian           Application for leave to Appeal is allowed. Delay condoned. We have heard learned Additional solicitor General for the appellant and perused the record. We do not see any cogent reason to entertain the Appeal. The judgment impugned does not warrant any Interference. The Appeal is dismissed.