UNION OF INDIA Vs. K R SANAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by the petitioners is against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1039/2003. The Original Application was filed by the first respondent seeking for a direction to release the annual increment that fell due on 01/01/1996 with consequential benefits. He had retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years with effect from 31/12/1995. The Tribunal has taken the view that the applicant is entitled to be paid the increment which fell due on 01/01/1996 and granted consequential benefits.

(2.) Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the first respondent / applicant. Relying upon Ext. P8 judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Shri. T. P. M. Ibrahim Khan, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners contended that once a person has retired from service on attaining superannuation, there is no question of granting increments which fell due on the next day, as he was not in service on that day. Reliance is also placed on FR 17(1), FR 56(a), FR 24 and FR 26 mainly to contend that once the officer ceases to discharge the duties attached to a post, the question of drawing an increment does not arise. Reliance is also placed on the recent decision of the Apex Court in Achhaibar Maurya v. State of U.P. and Others, 2008 KHC 4391 : 2008 (2) SCC 639 .

(3.) The relevant facts show the following: The respondent retired from service on 31/12/1995 on attaining the age of 58. The claim is for the next annual increment which fell due on 01/01/1996. The Tribunal allowed the OA on the ground that the right to gain the increment arose after completion of one year service and what remains thereafter is only enforcement in the form of payment. Therefore, a benefit of the year long service cannot be denied on the plea that the employee ceased to be in service on the day on which he was to have been paid the increment. Reliance was also placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. George, 2003 KHC 1129 : 2003 (2) KLJ 978 : ILR 2004 (1) Ker. 10 : 2003 (3) KLT 387 and that of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 797/92 and also the judgment of the Tribunal in OA No. 36/2004.