Benefit of notional increment purely for pensionary purpose and no other benefit. IB Notional Increment 23.9,2020 after retirement
The case study is regarding the large number of cases of notional increment for pensionary benefits to those Central government servants who have retired on 30th June. The case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs Registrar played an important role in giving benefits to the Central Government Servant. Subsequently, when the Union of India reviewed the order of Honourable High Court in Union Of India vs P. Ayyamperumal, the same was dismissed on 8 August, 2019. The case study shows how The Central Administrative Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH quashed the order when the applicant reffered the above case in the decision by Honourable High Court Madras
Kulwant Singh vs Union of India
Also Read- Government Retired Employees CAT Case Retired
Applicant
- Kulwant Singh
Respondents
- Union of India
- Director Intelligence Bureau
Brief facts in the application
The applicant filed the application among other thing, to quash an order in which his claim for grant of one notional increment as on 1.7.2012, after his retirement on 30th June, 2012 was dismissed, which was based upon decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in P. AYYAMPERUMAL VS. THE REGISTRAR that was upheld. The Revision Petition was also dismissed on the ground that there have not been government orders towards extending the benefits of court judgments cited in his representation to all serving/retired officials, which the applicant felt is illegal. The petitioner also states that even otherwise impugned order is not sustainable as it is a totally non-speaking order.
The applicant seeks
The order to be set aside as it is illegal and arbitrary
direction to the respondents to give a fresh look to the issue by taking into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of P. Ayyamperumal
Also Read- Central Administrative Tribunal (cat) Chandigarh
Order of The Tribunal
The tribunal was in the view to quash the order as the respondents cannot reject claim of a similarly situated person only on the ground of a formal decision by the Government on the issue when there is already a judicial view and, in any case, it is a totally non-speaking order. The respondents are directed take a decision on the claim of the applicant in accordance with ratio laid down in the case of P. Ayyamperum
Also Read- PGIMER NURSING OFFICER CAT CASE Archives
P.Ayyamperumal vs The Registrar
The petition was filed under Art 226 which gives power to The High Courts to issue writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari under the its jurisdictions. The case played a significant role as it granted notional increment for pensionary benefits. Government of India later through Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions observed that the case was ‘in personam’ which means made against specific person.
Also Read- Petition for Establishment of Permanent CAT Bench in Jammu
Petitioner
- Ayyamperumal
Respondents
- The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal
- Union of India rep.by
the Chairman, CBEC
- Union of India rep.by
Department of Personnel & Training
- The Director of General (Inspection),
Customs & Central Excise
Also Read- Punishment of Recovery of Fine Challenged in CAT Tribunal
Brief facts in the petition
The petitioner retired as Additional Director General in Indian Revenue Service in Customs and Excise Department on 30.06.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. The sixth pay commission made 1st July as the date of increment for all employees and because of that the petitioner was denied the last increment even though he has completed a full one year in service which is from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013. Grieved by that, the petitioner filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench where the Original Application was rejected as The Tribunal was on the view that the incumbent is only entitled to increment on 1st July if he continued in service on that day and since the petitioner left the service before that date, he is not entitled for the benefits. The petitioner then filed a petition under Art 226 of The Constitution of India. The writ was filed before Madras High Court of Certiorarified Mandamus and seeks
quash the order passed by the first respondent
direct the fourth respondent to treat the retirement date of the petitioner as 01.07.2013
grant him all the consequential benefits including the pensionary benefits
The Petitioner cited the case of Secretary to Government, Finance Department and others v. M.Balasubramaniam where the Madras Court rejected the petition filed by The State challenging the order passed in the writ petition entitling the employee who was similarly placed like that of the petitioner. The Central Administrative Tribunal did not took consideration of this case even though this case covers his case. In addition to this, the petition refereed passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu which mentions that the Pay Grievance Redressal Cell has recommended that when the date of increment of a Government Servant falls due on the day following superannuation on completion of one full year of service, such service may be considered for the benefit of notional increment purely for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose.
Also Read- Review Application CAT Tribunal Archives
Order of The Court
Since the petitioner has completed one year of services on 30.06.2013 and the judgement of The Court, the writ petition is allowed even though increment fell due on 01.07.2013.
This post is written by Digant Das.
For case specific advice, please contact Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal/Service Matter/Labour and Service/CAT/Legal Aid/Administrative/Senior/Service Employment Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.
More on 99888-17966.
