SUSHIL KUMAR VIG Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order dtd. 15/6/2023, passed by the General Manager (Human Resource), Central Office E.R.D., Union Bank of India, Mumbai, declining to pay increment due to the petitioner for the period 1/2/2012 to 31/1/2013. The petitioner has further prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents ordering them to pay notional annual increment for the period 1/2/2012 to 31/1/2013 that fell due on 1/2/2013 in accordance with law.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is a retired Senior Manager who retired from the service of the respondentUnion Bank of India (for short, "the Bank') on 31/1/2013 upon attaining the age of superannuation. It is not in dispute that he has received all terminal benefits upon his retirement. The petitioner's date of birth is 1/2/1953 and he has, therefore, retired on 31/1/2013.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that the annual increment due to the petitioner for the period 1/2/2012 to 31/1/2013 falls due on the 1st of February of each year. The petitioner has always been paid his regular increment while in service on the 1st of February every year for every completed full one year of service, to wit, from the 1st of February of the previous year to the 31st January of the following year. Here also the petitioner was entitled to the increment payable on the 1st of February, 2013 which was denied to him on the pretext that he had retired on 31st January, a day earlier.