GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, 23 petitions, the details of which have been given in the heading of the order, are being disposed of as all these petitions arise on the same question of law. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CWP No.32598 of 2019.

(2.) In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that by the date of attaining the age of superannuation, they had already completed 12 months continuous service so as to become eligible for the grant of increment as envisaged under Rule 4.7 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume 1 Part 1 but the said benefit has not been extended to them only on the ground that the benefit of increment, for which, they had become entitled for, could have only been granted to refix their pay on the very nextday of completion of 12 months but as they retired from services before the said date and as they were not in service on such date, the question of re-fixation of their pay by the grant of increment for services for continuous 12 months prior to the date of retirement cannot arise and therefore, the emoluments which the petitioners were drawing on the last date of their service, are to be taken in consideration for the purpose of computing their pensionary benefits. The grievance being raised by the petitioners is that once they have completed 12 months continuous service prior to their retirement, an increment has to be granted to them in the cadre in which they were working and it is only thereafter, by re-fixing their pay by adding the increment to their pay, the retiral benefits of the petitioners should have been calculated. The claim which is being made by the petitioners is raised by placing reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court passed in CWP No.15732 of 2017 titled as P. Ayyamperumal versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai and others on 15/9/2017, which judgment on the said question of law has attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The said claim of the petitioners did not find favour with the respondents and the same was rejected vide impugned order dtd. 19/8/2019 (Annexure P-5). The said order is under challenge in this petition with further prayer that their pensionary benefits be calculated by the respondents after adding the increment to their salary.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners presses that once by the time the petitioners attained the age of superannuation, they had already completed 12 months continuous service in the cadre in which they were working and since one year of continuous service is required for the grant of increment as envisaged under Rule 4.7 of the Punjab Civil Service RulesVolume 1 Part 1, their last drawn salary has to be fixed by granting them the increment for the service which they had rendered for 12 months prior to their retirement and the pensionary benefits are to be calculated only thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the same question of law came up for consideration before the Madras High Court and the Madras High Court while passing orders in CWP No. 15732 of 2017 titled as P. Ayyamperumal versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai and others on 15/9/2017, held that an employee, who has rendered 12 months continuous service prior to the retirement, is entitled for the grant of increment and the same has to be taken into account while fixing the salary of the employee for the purpose of computing the pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said judgment has already attained finality and therefore, as the law laid down by the Madras High Court is fully applicable in the case of the petitioners as well, appropriate direction be given to notionally grant the petitioners one increment in respect of the continuous 12 months service rendered by them prior to their retirement and fix their last drawn salary accordingly and thereafter compute their pensionary benefits and grant the petitioners the consequential benefits.