Vijay Kumar Roy vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents were present at the time of hearing.

This O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following main relief(s):-

The instant original application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the respondent no 3 through which one annual increment, on notional basis on his retirement, was denied to him. Applicant has contended that the aforesaid act of the respondents is contrary to the extant rules and settled legal position. By way of the OA, he seeks quashing of the aforesaid impugned order with a direction to the respondents to grant him one notional increment and all consequential benefits.

Counter has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that benefit of one notional increment has been denied to the applicant because he was serving punishment in that period for which he is claiming notional increment. Since it is a requisite condition for granting increment that the work and conduct of the employee concerned has to be good and satisfactory, since in the instant case of the applicant, his conduct was neither good nor satisfactory due to which he was serving punishment, no notional increment can be granted to him.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that on completing 33 years of service, the applicant was retired on 30.06.2018. He was entitled for one notional increment due to him on 01.07.2019 but when the same was denied by the department, he approached before this Bench of the Tribunal through OA No. 863 of 2024 which was allowed on 09.08.2024 directing the respondents to grant one notional increment to the applicant. However, instead of complying with the order of the Tribunal, the respondents have passed the order dated 23.04.2025 through which the claim of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that the applicant was under the punishment of Withholding of Increment (WIT) for period of six months w.e.f. 01.07.2017 without postponing future increments, and therefore, the increment was not due to him. Learned counsel argued that the aforesaid order is illegal and contrary to several judicial pronouncements made by the various Courts across the country including Apex Court and thus referring to entire facts and circumstances of the case, prayer was made to allow the OA and quash the aforesaid impugned order thereby directing the respondents to grant one notional increment to the applicant.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions of the applicant’s counsel and referring to the counter affidavit, he argued that the case of the applicant was considered by the competent authority in accordance with the direction issued vide order and judgment dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Allahabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. During assessment, it was found that the applicant was imposed the punishment of Withholding of Increment (WIT) for period of six months w.e.f. 01.07.2017 without postponing future increments. Thus, since the applicant is seeking one increment falling due on 01.07.2018 (for the service rendered by him from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018), and he was under punishment during that period vide order dated 06.04.2017, thus, no increment can be granted for that period because it is an existing rule and direction that while granting one increment, the conduct of the employee for the previous year has to be taken into consideration. When, it is established thatthe applicant was undergoing punishment during the aforesaid period, no benefit of notional increment can be awarded to him because his conduct was not good and satisfactory and accordingly, his case was rejected.

I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records.

It is evident from the records that upon his retirement on 30.06.2018, the applicant claimed for grant of one notional increment. Upon non-consideration of his prayer, he approached before this Tribunal through OA No 863 of 2024 which was decided on 09.08.2024 directing the respondents to grant one notional increment to the applicant along with all consequential benefits. In compliance of the order of the Tribunal, respondents issued the order dated 23.04.2025 through which applicant’s prayer for one notional increment was rejected. The operative portion of the order dated 23.04.2025 is quoted below:

Thus, the aforesaid quotation implies that respondents are of the contention that since the applicant is seeking one increment falling due on 01.07.2018 (for the service rendered by him from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018), and he was under punishment during that period vide order dated 06.04.2017, thus, no increment can be granted for that period because it is an existing rule and direction that while granting one increment, the conduct of the employee for the previous year has to be taken into consideration. As per the respondents, when it is established that the applicant was undergoing punishment during the aforesaid period, no benefit of notional increment can be awarded to him because his conduct was not good and satisfactory and accordingly, his case was rejected.

Here, it is pertinent to record that as per the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2025 issued by DoP&T, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India which relates to grant of one notional increment to the retired employees who have retired on 30^th June / 31^st December, which has been issued in conformity with the several judicial pronouncements made on this matter by various Courts across the country including the Apex Court, it is true that the benefit of one notional increment is given to the employees retiring on 30^th June / 31^st December who have rendered the requisite qualifying service as on the date of their superannuation with satisfactory work and good conduct, for calculating the pension admissible to them. For the sake of clarity, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid OM is quoted herein below:

Now, if the phraseology used in the aforesaid quoted OM is compared with the phraseology used in the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the respondents, which has been quoted above, it is explicit that the respondents have themselves stated that the applicant was undergoing punishment of “WIT for a period of six months w.e.f. 01.07.2017 without postponing future increments” and the said punishment was imposed by the competent authority of the respondents. So, when the competent authority of the respondents has itself stated that the aforesaid punishment was inflicted without postponing future increments, there was no occasion for the respondents to have rejected the claim of the applicant on the ground that he was undergoing punishment in the previous year. No doubt, he was undergoing punishment, however, the punishment order itself stated that the punishment will not postpone granting of future increments to the applicant. Thus, when there was a clear direction of the Tribunal given in OA No 863 of 2024 to grant one notional increment to the applicant, in all likelihood, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have granted the benefit of one notional increment to the applicant thereby reissuing his PPO and providing all consequential benefits.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, the instant original application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 23.04.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. In view of the extant judicial pronouncements made on this issue and strictly in view of the OM dated 20.05.2025, respondents are hereby directed to grant one notional increment falling due on the very next date i.e. 01^st July 2018. The respondents are further directed to issue the revised PPO in favour of the applicant (after notional fixation of one increment) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the applicant will also be entitled for interest on that payment @ GPF rate. Needless to mention, the aforesaid benefit will be conferred upon the applicant subject to him fulfilling all the requisite eligibility criteria as prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2025 issued by the DoPT as has been discussed above. It is made clear that case of the applicant shall not be barred by the rider used / taken by the respondents while passing the order dated 23.04.2025 as the same has been quashed and set aside.

All associated MAs stand disposed of. No order as to costs.