UNION OF INDIA Vs. SITA RAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO one has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The petitioner, whose date of birth is 1st February, 933 has retired from service on 31.1.1991. Under the Rules whose date of birth falls on 1st February of the calendar month he retires on close of the previous calendar month. It is because of this rule the respondent -petitioner had retired on 31.1.1991 instead of on 1.2.1991. He has been given benefit of all retiral benefits as per last drawn emoluments on 31.1.1991. However, the respondent -petitioner has made claim of one increment in his emoluments with effect from 1.2.1991, alleging that while in service the date of his annual increment fell on 1st of February, it became due on 1.2.1991. By contending that though on the operation of the rule relating to superannuation he su - perannuated on 31.1.1991, but he must be deemed to have continued in service for the purpose of annual increment until 1st February, 1991, therefore the increment due to him on 1st February, 1991 ought to have been released. By not doing so he has suffered continuing financial loss.

(3.) WE are unable to sustain the order of the learned Tribunal. Once the incumbent retired on 1 st (sic -31 st ?) January, 1991 the relationship of employer and employee came to an end on that date. The date of birth of the respondent has not been challenged and in absence of satisfactory reply we do not consider to extend the benefits/emoluments after 31 st, (sic -January ?) 1991.