Grant of notional increment (as due on 1st July/1st January) for the pensionary benefits to those employees who had retired on 30th of June/31st of December before drawing the same – clarification reg.
The General Manager (P)
South Central Railway,
Headquarters Office, Personnel Department,
Secunderabad, Pin – 500071
Sub: Grant of notional increment (as due on 1st July/1st January) for the pensionary benefits to those employees who had retired on 30th of June/31st of December before drawing the same – clarification reg.
Ref: S.C. Railway’s letter No. P[R] 481/XII dated 03.01.2025.
Please connect S.C. Railway’s letter under reference whereby Board’s clarification was sought regarding further course of action to be adopted in notional increment cases consequent to dismissal of Review Petition filed vide Dy. No. 36418/2024 {The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors Vs C. P. Mundinamani & Ors} vide order dated 18.12.2024.
In the above context, it is stated that in compliance with the order dated 06.09.2024 pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MA No. 2400/2024 (Union of India & Ors Vs M. Siddaraj); DOP&T had circulated necessary instructions/guidelines in the matter vide their O.M. dated 14.10.2024, which have been adopted on all Indian Railways vide Board’s letter dated 03.12.2024 with the approval of the competent authority.
It is also observed from S.C. Railway’s reference that the Railway is already aware of the fact that the aforesaid clarificatory petition was again taken up for hearing by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13.12.2024; it is pointed out that during the hearing, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed as under:
“At the request of the learned Additional Solicitor General, the present applications/petitions are not being taken up for hearing today. Re-list for hearing in the week commencing 10.02.2025. However, we observe that the applicant, Union of India, must comply with the interim order passed by this Court. In case we find non-compliance with the said order in letter and spirit, costs as well as interest may be imposed.”
It is also clarified that in any unforeseen situation of contempt proceedings, if any, initiated by the petitioner(s) for non-compliance of orders, Railway Board shall not be responsible for any complexities arising out in such adverse circumstances.
Comments