Moses Govindanarayanan and Others vs The Secretary to Government, Finance Department, The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department and The Director of Collegiate Education

K. Chandru, J.—In all these three writ petitions, the Petitioners have retired from the Government service as College Teachers. Long after

their services, they seek for the grant of annual increment and for implementation of the revised scale of pay with effect from 1.1.1996 and

1.1.2006 respectively on the basis of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission with arrears of pay and other consequential monetary

benefits.

It is the case of the Petitioners that they belonged to Tamil Nadu Collegiate Education Services. They all got retired from service prior to

1.1.1996 and 1.1.2006 respectively. But, however as per the Government order in force, they were granted re-employment pursuant to the G.

Os. All of them who had continued in service were either retired or ceased to be in employment either on 31.5.1996 or 31.5.2006 respectively.

During the relevant time, the Pay Commission''s recommendations had come into force. Therefore, the Petitioners are also eligible to get pay

revision which were announced during re-employment period. Heavy reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of

Kerala and Another Vs. P.V. Neelakandan Nair and Others, .

However, this issue has been gone through by this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 12515 of 2010, dated 05.10.2010 in K. Muthukannan v. The

Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai and others. The following passages

found in paragraphs 7 to 11 may be usefully reproduced below:

A perusal of the judgment reported in State of Kerala and Another Vs. P.V. Neelakandan Nair and Others, clearly shows in that case, the

Hon''ble Supreme Court was interpreting Rule 60(C) (Part I) of the Kerala State Service Rules. In that case the Rule itself had prescribed no

increment or promotion during the re-employment period will be paid. But it did not refer to benefit of wage fixation taking place during the period.

Hence it was held the teacher therein was eligible for a wage revision which happened during his reemployment period. In those rules, it is not

called as reemployment. The age of retirement was fixed 55 in that service and if any teacher''s retirement falls during the middle of the month, the

same will stand postponed to the last day of the month in which the academic year comes to an end. The statutory rule had only denied the benefit

of the increment or promotion during the extended period, but that cannot be read as continuity of service for revision of wages.

It is also necessary to refer the passage found in the operative portion of the order which reads as follows;

civil servant retires under the applicable rules in the afternoon of the Last day of the month in which he attains the age of 55 years. But in the

specifically prescribed cases, the date of retirement is postponed ""till the last day of month in which the academic year ends"" so that the education

of the students is not disturbed during the academic year. The legislature has denied the benefit of increment and promotion during the extended

period. There is no scope for reading into the provision the benefits of pay revision. ""Increment"" has a definite concept in service laws. It is

conceptually different from revision of pay scale. ""Increment"" is an increase or addition on a fixed scale; it is a regular increase in salary on such a

scale. As noted by this Court in State Bank of India Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, Dhanbad and Another, , under

the Labour and Industrial Laws, an ""increment"" is in the same scale. A promotion involves going to a higher grade. The pay of an employee is

generally fixed with reference to a pay scale. On the other hand, in the case of revision, the pay scale is revised which may incidentally result into

increment. Rule 60(c) does not refer to pay revisions which is conceptually different from annual increments within the prescribed pay scale.

Therefore, entitlement of the concerned teachers for the benefits of pay revision cannot be doubted. The view taken by the High Court does not

suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.

It is not clear as to how the said judgment can be of any assistance to the Petitioner. In more or less in similar circumstance, when an employee

who got retired on 30.06.1986, claimed the revision of salary which was given on 01.07.1986, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore

Bench granted relief stating that if a person gets retired during the day, the day will come to an end during midnight on which the date of retirement

occurs. If the revision was given on the next day, the Government servant is entitled to get such wage revision. The judgment of the CAT,

Bangalore Bench was held to be bad in law by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court vide its decision in Union of India and Ors. v.

Y.N.R. Rao in W.P. No. 18186 of 2003 (S-CAT) dated 08.12.2003.

In paragaph 5 of the judgment, the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court presided by R.V. Raveendran, J. (as he then was) held as follows:

But for the provisions of FR 56, which provides that a Government Servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of last date of the month in

which he had attained the age of 58 years, the Respondent, who was born on 9.3.1937 would have retired on 8.3.1995. The provision for

retirement from service on the afternoon of the last date of the month in which the Government Servant attains the age of retirement instead of on

the actual completion of the age of retirement in FR 56 was introduced in the year 1973-74 for accounting and administrative convenience. What is

significant is the proviso to Clause (a) of FR 56 which provides that an employee whose date of birth is first of a month, shall retire from service on

the afternoon of the last date of the preceding month on attaining the age of 58 years. Therefore, if the date of birth of a government is 1.4.1937 he

would retire from service not on 30.4.1995, but on 31.3.1995. If a person born on 1.4.1937 shall retire on 31.3.1995, it would be illogical to say

a person born on 9.3.1937 would retire with effect from 1.4.1995. That would be the effect, if the decision of the Full Bench of the CAT,

Mumbai, is to be accepted. Therefore a government servant retiring on the afternoon of 31.3.1995 retires on 31.3.1995 and not from 1.4.1995.

We hold that the decision of the Full Bench (Mumbai) of the CAT that a government servant, retiring on the afternoon of 31st March is to be

created as retiring with effect from the first day of April, that is same as retiring on the forenoon of first of April, is not good law.

In this State the teachers are allowed to work based upon the executive order of the Government on reemployment basis and not on the basis

of continuation of service. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner based upon the judgment of the Supreme

Court reported in State of Kerala and Another Vs. P.V. Neelakandan Nair and Others, has no application to the facts of the case. The

Petitioner''s salary on reemployment was on the basis of his last pay drawn less pension. Actually as per the scheme of the State Government, a

retired teacher is only a pensioner and his services are utilised till the end of the academic year on the promise that he will be paid his last drawn

wages minus his pension. This cannot be compared with the statutory rules framed by the Kerala State and the interpretation of those service rules

by the Supreme Court.

In the light of the above, these three writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.