VIJAYAN P. R. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common issue, which surfaced for consideration in as many as 16 Original Applications, has been disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench as per a Common Order dtd. 1/11/2022, whereby all the Original Applications were dismissed. The said Common Order is under challenge in the original petitions afore-referred. The common issue, which was considered by the Tribunal, the correctness of which we are called upon to decide, has the overtone, more of a legal nature, than factual, based on interpretation of the relevant Rules. The issue pertains to the question whether a Government servant, who retired on the last working day of the preceding month, but whose annual increment falls due on the first of the succeeding month, is entitled for such increment? The legal imbroglio received different interpretation and answer by the various High Courts across the country, including that of ours. However, the issue has been finally settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by virtue of the authoritative pronouncement made in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and Others [2023 SCC OnLine SC 401], whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised the claim of the retired employees, on an interpretation of the relevant statutory rule and accepting the views expressed in the judgments in this regard by the High Courts of Allahabad, Gujarath, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Madras; and disapproving the judgments which took a contrary view by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and that of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. However, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents seriously persuaded us to draw a factual distinction based on the relevant Rules applicable, wherefore, we are impelled to consider the issue in detail.

(2.) Although we are dealing with 8 different Original Petitions, a separate assessment of the facts in each of these cases is not required, inasmuch as the issue for consideration in all these cases, as already indicated, is common. Suffice to notice that the petitioners herein have retired from their respective establishments on attaining the age of superannuation. As on the date of their retirement, they have earned an annual increment, which, however, is due and payable only on the very next day. The request of the petitioners to reckon the annual increments for the purpose of retiral benefits did not find favour with the respondents/employers. They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench by filing the subject Original Applications. However, the O.As. were dismissed by the common impugned order by the Tribunal. The Tribunal took note of the relevant Rule, which contemplates grant of annual increment on first July or January, as the case may be, to arrive at a conclusion that employees concerned must continue as on the said date to claim the benefit of the annual increment, wherefore, an employee, who stood retired on the previous day, is not entitled for the same. The Tribunal also took note of the judgments rendered by the various High Courts and chose to toe in line with the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Hari Prakash v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others [2020 SCC OnLine HP 2362]. The Tribunal also followed the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhavsingh Tomar and Others v. M.P.Power Management Co. Ltd. and Others [2020 SCC OnLine MP 4360] and also that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Principal Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh and another v. C.Subba Rao [2005 (2) ALT 25]. In dismissing the claim, the Tribunal also did not choose to follow the judgment of the Madras High Court in P.Ayyamperumal v. The Registrar and Ors. [CDJ 2017 MHC 6274]. The trump card of the petitioners/retired employees before us was the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P.Mundinamani (supra), wherein the very issue is seen addressed elaborately, after taking note of the views of the various High Courts. The relevant Rule, which was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was Regulation No.40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997, which is extracted here below:-

(3.) Based on the above Rule, it was argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an increment accrues only from the day following that on which it is earned and therefore, the employee must necessarily be in service as on the date on which the increment accrues. An employee, who stood retired on the previous day, is not entitled for the benefit was the contention raised. Another contention put forward was that annual increment is in the form of a good service which is an incentive for the concerned employee to serve effectively, as also, to render good service, which facility cannot be contemplated for an employee who is not in service. Relying upon the expression "accrue", as defined in Law Lexicon, it was argued that the word "accrue" means, to come into existence as an enforceable claim or right, based upon which, the argument was that the increment accrued only on the day following the retirement of the employees concerned and hence they are not entitled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court started addressing the issue from paragraph no.6 onwards. In paragraph no.6.3 the Supreme Court took stock of the contrary views expressed by the different High Courts on the issue. While, the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh (Full Bench), Himachal Pradesh and Kerala took a view against the entitlement of the employees, the High Courts of Madras, Delhi, Allahabad, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Gujarath have taken a view in support of the employees' claim. In paragraph no.6.4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the argument that an increment is only an incentive to encourage an employee to perform well, which facility cannot be extended to a retired employee. In considering the issue as to whether an increment earned as on the date of retirement, but which accrues only on the next day, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph no.6.5, adopted a purposive interpretation of the provision, the relevant findings of which are extracted here below:-