R.K. PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by twelve petitioners, all employees of the Railway Protection Force 'RPF', who retired from service during different years, but on 30th of June. Since they were not in service on 1st of July of the year in which they retired, the annual increment they earned for the period commencing 1st July of the year preceding their retirement and 30th of June was denied to them on ground that they were not in service on 1st of July of the year that they retired, when the increment for the relative year would fall due. In substance, therefore, what the petitioners claim is that though they have earned the annual increment during the relative year of retirement, working for the entire period of one year from 1st July to 30th of June of the year they retired, it has been denied to them on the specious ground that on the day the increment actually fell due i.e. 1st July in the year of their respective retirements, they were not in service. All the petitioners pray that a mandamus be issued, ordering the respondents to grant one notional increment to them as on 1st July of the respective years of their retirement, which, in each case, fell on 30th of June of that year, for the limited purpose of determining their pensionary benefits. They further seek a command to the respondents to re-determine the basic pay payable to each of the petitioners, after grant of notional increment, revise their pension benefits accordingly and pay arrears accrued along with interest.

(2.) The details of the twelve petitioners are set forth in tabular form below : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_28_LAWS(ALL)3_2025_1.html</FRM>

(3.) The petitioners say that they have been denied the accrued increment on 30th June, otherwise due to them, merely because they retired a day before 1st of July, when increment would fall due. The petitioners have relied on preponderant authority of High Courts as well as the Supreme Court in Director (Administration and Human Resources) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others (2023) 14 SCC 411, where it was held that increment payable to a government servant retiring on 30th June was to be granted to him notionally and his post-retiral benefits calculated on the basis of basic pay determined, with notional increment added.