UNION OF INDIA Vs. R MALAKONDAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but important question that arises for consideration in these two writ petitions is, whether an employee who retires on the date when the increment becomes due is entitled for payment of the same.

(2.) The 1st respondent in W.P. Nos.1219 and 1409 of 1998 were working as Audit Officer and Supervisor respectively in the office of the 3rd petitioner. Their dates of births were 1-7-1938 and 23-6-1937 and as such they stood retired with effect from 1-7-1996 and 1-7-1995 respectively. They were denied the annual increment of the year preceding their date of retirement on the ground that they stood retired from service by the time it became due. Therefore, they filed O.A. Nos.518/97 and 862/97 respectively before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short 'the Tribunal'). Following its order in O.A. No.401/92 dated 2-12-1992, the Tribunal allowed the two O.As., viz., O.A. No.518/97 and 862/97 through its orders dated 1-5-1997 and 16-7-1997, which are almost verbatim. The Government challenges the said orders in these two writ petitions.

(3.) Sri R.S. Murthy, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, submits that the view taken by the Tribunal, that the respondents who retired on 1st July, on which date the increment fell due, were entitled for the same, cannot be sustained in law. He places reliance upon Rule 33 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and also Article 151 of the Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). According to him, once an employee stood retired on the date on which the increment fell due, he is not entitled for the same; the reason being that, the question of payment of increment to an employee arises if only he continues to be in service. On the other hand, Sri P.V.P. Mrutyunjaya Rao, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent in both the writ petitions, submits that the employees become entitled for the increment for the services rendered by them during the preceding year after completion of the year's satisfactory service, and what remains to be done is only payment of the same. Once the entitlement accrues, the result of it cannot be denied. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Banerjee v. Union of India.