Ghulam Muhammad Parray vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

The instant O.A. is filed against the inaction of the respondents in denying the applicant the benefit of the annual increment that fell due on 01.07.2016. The applicant, who was serving as a Senior Assistant, and was superannuated on 30.06.2016, after completing the requisite qualifying service for earning the increment. Thereafter, his pension was made operative from 01.07.2016.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the annual increment due on 01.07.2016 was not a benefit to be earned afresh on the said date, but was the result of the service rendered by him during the preceding year. Since the applicant had completed the requisite qualifying service and had rendered the entire period of service necessary for earning the increment before his retirement on 30.06.2016, he was entitled to the benefit of the said increment for the purpose of fixation of his pension and other retiral benefits.

It is further submitted in the O.A. that the applicant had approached the respondents and the concerned authorities from time to time for grant of the aforesaid benefit and for consequential revision of his pensionary benefits. However, despite submission of repeated representations, no effective decision was taken on his claim. The failure of the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's claim by passing a reasoned and speaking order has caused serious prejudice to the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the issue involved in the present Original Application is no longer res integra and has already been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as The Director (Administration and HR), KPTCL & Others v. C.P. Mundinamani & Others, Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023, decided on 11.04.2023. He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench in O.A. No. 563 of 2025, wherein the issue relating to grant of annual increment to an employee retiring on 30th June has been considered.

In view of the aforesaid legal position, the applicant contends that denial of the annual increment due on 01.07.2016, despite his having completed the requisite qualifying service for earning the same, is arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the applicable rules and settled legal position. The denial has also resulted in consequential reduction in the applicant's pension and other retiral benefits, thereby causing recurring financial loss to him.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to grant the annual increment due on 01.07.2016 by taking into consideration the service rendered by him up to 30.06.2016, and to consequentially revise his pension, pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits. The applicant further seeks payment of all consequential arrears arising out of such revision, along with such other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Through the medium of the instant O.A. the applicant seeks for the following reliefs-

Learned counsel for the applicant argued the matter at length and submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if the present O.A is treated as a representation and the respondents are directed to consider and decide the same within a stipulated time frame, in light of the averments made therein and in the case titled Director (Administration and HR), KPTCL & Others v. C.P. Mundinamani & Others, Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023, decided on 11.04.2023, as well as observation made by the CAT, Jammu Bench, in the case of Yasmeen Kousar Vs. U.T. of Jammu and Kashmir and Others in T.A./61/563/2025 (Annexure-3), along with the documents annexed and the law applicable in the instant case.

Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Syed Musaib, DAG, submits that, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, the respondents have no objection if the present O.A is treated as a representation and is disposed of in terms of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present O.A may be disposed of at this stage by treating the same as a representation.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present O.A is disposed of with a direction to respondents to treat this O.A as representation and to accord due consideration to the assertions made therein, in light of the case tilted as Director (Administration and HR), KPTCL & Others v. C.P. Mundinamani & Others, Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023, decided on 11.04.2023, as well as the observations made by the CAT, Jammu Bench, in the case of Yasmeen Kousar Vs. U.T. of Jammu and Kashmir and Others in T.A./61/563/2025 (Annexure-3), and the law holding the field and subject to the entitlement and eligibility of the applicant, as well as other applicable conditions and rules and regulations. Further, if there is no impediment. Respondents shall also take into consideration the documents annexed with the O.A while according such consideration.

The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a comprehensive reasoned, speaking, and detailed order.

It is clarified that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims or contentions raised by either side. All questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent authority, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, O.A No. 966/2026 is disposed of along with the connected M.As., if any, parties are to bear their own costs.

Consign the file to the Record Room, after due compliance.