PARLIAMENT OF INDIA
RAJYA SABHA
DEPARTMENT RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE
Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi
December, 2022 / Agrahayana, 1944 (Saka)

ONE HUNDRED TWENTIETH REPORT
ON
ACTION TAKEN ON ONE HUNDRED TENTH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
“PENSIONER’S GRIEVANCES – IMPACT OF PENSION ADALATS AND CENTRALIZED
PENSION GRIEVANCES REDRESS AND MONITORING SYSTEM (CPENGRAMS)”
PERTAINING TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF PENSION & PENSIONERS’ WELFARE
(MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS)

(Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 8th December, 2022)
(Laid on the Table of the Lok Sabha on 8th December, 2022)

Implement MACP w.e.f. 1st January, 2006 and grant increment on 1st July who retired on 30th June

RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS WHICH THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT DESIRE TO PURSUE IN VIEW OF THE REPLIES GIVEN BY THE MINISTRY

GRIEVANCES PERTAINING TO PENSION POLICY, PENSION STRUCTURE AND OTHER RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Recommendation/ Observation

2.35 The Committee feels that DoPPW should pursue the matter of implementation of MACP w.e.f 1st January, 2006 with DoPT as it will give relief to pensioners retiring in the intervening period i.e. from January, 2006 to August, 2008 as all other benefits were given to them from January 2006 as per 6th CPC recommendations. The Committee also recommends DOPPW to consider the case of Pensioners’ who retired on 30th June and were denied the increment on the plea that next date of retirement is 1st July. (3.35)

Action Taken

2.36 As advised by DRPSC, the DoPPW pursued the matter with DOPT vide OM dated 19.01.2022 who, in turn, have informed that the issue of effective date of implementation of MACPS has been addressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Order dated 28.04.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 1579/2021 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 15572/2019] of Union of India V/s R. K. Sharma & Others wherein the Apex Court has upheld that date of implementation of the MACP Scheme is from 01.09.2008. In its order, the Hon’ble Court has also overturned the earlier decision in Balbir Singh Turn case and held that benefits under the MACPS cannot be claimed from 1.1.2006. Instructions have been issued to Ministries/Departments vide DoP&T OM No. 35034/3/2015-Estt. (D) dated 13.07.2021 to defend all matters and dispose of representations based on Order dated 28.04.2021 of Apex Court.

2.37 It is mentioned that the subject-matter of increment and retirement age/date are administered by DOPT. Therefore, the reference in this regard was made to DOPT who have examined the matter and declined the request with the following grounds:

• (i) In terms of the provisions of Rule 40 of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, the Government servants who are on Earned Leave/Commuted Leave/Half Pay Leave/Leave Not Due etc. on the due date of their increment, are not granted the benefit of annual increment till they join duty on expiry of such leave. Accordingly, in the present case since the employees have retired from Government service on 30th June and therefore not on duty as on 1st July, the annual increment cannot be released on 1st July to these employees.
• (ii) Further, as per the provisions of FR 9 (21), 9 (6), 17 (1), 22, 26 (a), 56 (a) and Rule 14 of Pension Rules, as person is entitled for pay, increment and other allowances only when he is entitled to receive pay out of Consolidated Fund of India and continues to be in Government Service. Accordingly, a person who retires on the last working day would not be entitled for any increment falling due on the next day and also payable on the next day thereafter as he shall cease to be in Government Service. Granting him the increment earlier than the date on which it falls due and becomes payable, shall imply that he has been granted increment in the same month in which he has retired, i.e. one month earlier. Thus, the official will not complete the necessary qualifying service required for earning an increment, which shall be in contravention of the extant provisions.
• (iii) Further, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in its judgement in the case of C. Subbarao in the year 2005 (WP No. 22042 of 2003) had also observed that “as per Rule 14 of the Pension Rules, a person who retires on the last working day would not be entitled for any increment falling due on the next day and payable next day thereafter, because he would not answer the tests in these Rules.”

Further observation

2.38 The Committee takes note of the reply.

The post Implement MACP w.e.f. 1st January 2006 and grant increment on 1st July who retired on 30th June appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi

O.A. No. 776/2019
M.A. No. 1151/2021
With
O.A. No. 82/2021
O.A. No. 173/2021 & M.A. No. 202/2021
O.A. No. 183/2021
O.A. No. 184/2021
O.A. No. 673/2021
O.A. No. 692/2021
O.A. No. 704/2021 & M.A. No. 907/2021
O.A. No. 761/2021
M.A. No. 871/2021 & O.A. No. 1360/2020
M.A. No. 1152/2021 & O.A. No. 3624/2019
O.A. No. 1141/2020
O.A. No. 1402/2020
O.A. No. 1500/2020
O.A. No. 1501/2020
O.A. No. 1511/2020
O.A. No. 1512/2020
O.A. No. 1514/2020
O.A. No. 2197/2020
O.A. No. 2200/2020
O.A. No. 778/2019 & M.A. No. 1153/2021
O.A. No. 1592/2019
O.A. No. 1616/2019 & M.A. No. 343/2021
O.A. No. 2244/2019 & M.A. No. 2422/2019

This the 15th Day of July, 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)

Hon’ble Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon’ble Mr. A.K. Bishnoi, Member (A)

Item No. 31

O R D E R (Oral)

Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:

In this batch of OAs, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether an employee, who retired on 30th June of a year or 31st December of a preceding year, is entitled to be extended the benefit of increment that falls due on 1st July or 1st January of the next year, as the case may be. While the applicants in some of the cases have retired on 30th June, others retired on 31st December. They were denied the benefit of increment, which was otherwise due to them, only on the ground that by the time the increment became due, they were not in service.

2. The applicants contend there was absolutely no basis for the respondents in denying the benefit to them. Reliance is placed upon many orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the different Hon’ble High Courts. It is also stated that the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts were affirmed in some of the SLPs. Particulars thereof are also furnished.
3. The respondents filed the counter affidavits in respective OAs. Their stand is that with the retirement, the relationship of the employee with the Government ceases and once he is out of service, the Fundamental Rules do not permit extension of any benefit.
4. We heard Mr. Vidya Sagar, Mr. Mohid Tygagi, Mr. Setu Niket, Dr. Swati Jinidal Garg, Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Gupta, Ms. Versha Agarwal, Mr. Anmol Pandita, Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Mr. MS Reen, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Mr. MK Bhardwaj, Mr. Suresh Sharma, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. VSR Krishna, Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Mr. Kapil Agnihotri, Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Mr. Sanjeev Yadava, Mr. Amit Yadav, Mr. C. Bheemanama, Mr. R.K. Jain, Mr. Ritu Singh, Mr. RS Rana, Mr. RK jain, Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Mr. GS Virk, Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Mr. UN Singh, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. KK Sharma, Mr. Rajeev Kr., learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The issue as mentioned above, fell for consideration in a large number of cases. The Benches of this Tribunal as well as the different Hon’ble High Courts have taken the view that the increment becomes payable on account of the satisfactory service rendered by the employee for the preceding six months, and the mere fact that he retired one day earlier, should not be factored to deny him the benefit. It is also a matter of record that some SLPs filed against the detailed orders passed by the Hon’ble High Courts were dismissed.
6. It is true that in Union of India Vs. M. Siddaraj (SLP No. 4722/2021), the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order recently on 05.04.2021, directing that the pension shall be granted to the respondents therein on the basis of the last pay drawn as on 30th June, 2014. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that they verified the record and found that the respondents in the said SLP were already extended the benefit of increment, at the last day of their service.
7. Be that as it may, once the various benches of the Tribunal, the Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the increment, which became due on 1st July or 1st January as the case may be, needs to be released for the employees, who retired one day earlier thereto, the applicants herein cannot be denied such benefit.
8. To protect the interests of the respondents, we direct that in case any different view is taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 4722/2021, the applicants shall be under obligation to refund the benefit that is extended to them. In the corresponding orders, a clause can be incorporated to that effect.
9. We make it clear that extension of benefit of increment shall be subject to their fulfilling other conditions under the relevant service rules.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the OAs are allowed, directing that:

• (a) for such of the employees, who retired on 30th June of any particular year, increment payable on 1st July shall be extended. Their pensions shall also be revised, subject to their fulfilling other conditions which are applicable. The arrears that become due shall be paid without interest;
• (b) Similarly for employees, who retired on 31st December of a particular year, the increment payable on the 1st January of the next year shall be extended and pension revised, subject to same conditions in the same manner.
• (c) While extending such benefits, a clause shall be incorporated to the effect that in case the Hon’ble Supreme takes a different view in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP No. 4722/2021, they shall be under obligation to refund the entire benefit without any demur.

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pending MAs shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(A K Bishnoi )
Member (A)
(Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
Chairman

The post Grand of Increment who retired on 30th June and 31st December Court Order appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

F.No.19/2/2018-Estt (Pay-I)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training)

North Block, New Delhi
Dated: 3rd February, 2021

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: References/ Representations/ Court cases for granting notional increment for pensionary benefits in pursuance of the judgement dated 15.09.2017 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs Union of India & Ors-regarding.

The undersigned is directed to refer to references/ representations/ court cases/ VIP references, received in this Department in large numbers on the issue of granting notional increment for pensionary benefits to those Central government servants who have retired on 30th June/ 31st December of a year, in pursuance of the judgement dated 15.09.2017 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs Union of India & Ors.

2. The issue has been examined in this Department in consultation with Department of Legal Affairs and it has been observed that the judgement dated 15.09.2017 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No.15732 of 2017 in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs Union of India & Ors. is ‘inpersonam’ in nature. A brief note reflecting the Government’s stand on this issue is attached as Annexure-1.

Madras High Court Order – Notional increment of pensionary benefits

3. Further, it is also mentioned that in a similar case, the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 29.03.2019 (copy enclosed as Annexure-11) , while dismissing the SLP (C) Dy. No.6468/ 2019 filed by D/ o Telecommunications against the judgment dated 03.05.2017 of Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench in WP No.484 / 2010 in the matter of UOI & Ors. Vs. Sakha Ram Tripathy & Ors., has, inter alia, observed the following:

“There is delay of 566 days in filing the special leave petition. We do not see any reason to condone the delay. The Special leave petition is dismissed on delay, keeping all the questions of law open.”

4. Since the question of law is open and not yet decided, decision for implementation of the judgement dated 15.09.2017 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 in Shri P. Ayyamperumal case, in rem has not been taken.

5. Accordingly, all Ministries/ Departments are, therefore, advised to dispose of all pending grievances seeking notional increment for pensionary benefits and also to defend the various pending Court Cases in this matter.

6. In their application to the persons belonging to Indian Audit and Accounts Department, these orders are issued under Article 148(5) of the Constitution and after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

7. Hindi Version will follow.

(Murali Bhavaraju)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India

Annexure-1

Note on the issue of granting a notional increment for pensionary benefits in pursuance of the judgment dated 15.09.2017 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Hon’ble High Court of Madras, vide Order dated 15.09.2017, allowed the W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 filed by Shri P. Ayyamperumal relying upon its earlier judgment dated 20.09.2012 in W.P. No. 8440 of 2011 M. Balasubramaniam Vs State of Tamil Nadu. The said case referred by Hon’ble High Court in the said judgement is related to the Fundamental Rules of Tamil Nadu Government whereas the case of petitioner Shri P. Ayyamperumal relates to Central Government Rules. As per the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rule 26(a), the annual increments of the Govt. Servants are regulated in four quarters viz. 1st January, 1st April, 1st July and 1st October. For the Central Government, the increment accrues annually on 1st July only (6th CPC scenario) [now 1st July and 1st January in 7th CPC scenario]. Hence, argument of petitioner is devoid of merits.

2. In light of the relevant provisions of the Fundamental Rules like 9 (21), 9(6), 17(1), 22, 26(a) and 56(a), as also the provisions of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, a person appointed as a Government servant is entitled to pay, and is also entitled to draw the annual increment as long as such Government servant discharges duties of the post. However, such Government servant may not be entitled to draw the pay and allowances attached to the post as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. In other words, as per F.R. 17 read with F.Rs. 24 and 26, annual increment is given to a Government servant to enable him to discharge duty and draw pay and allowances attached to the post. If such Government servant ceases to discharge duties by any reason say, by reason of attainment of age of superannuation, he will not be entitled to draw pay and allowances. Such an employee would not be entitled to any increment if it falls due after the date of retirement, be it on the next day of retirement or sometime thereafter. An employee must satisfy not only the condition of becoming entitled for increment, but also should continue to be on duty as a Government servant on the due date {1st July/ 1st January) to avail the increment.

3. Further, in a similar matter, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the year 2005, in the C. Subbarao case, has, inter alia, observed as under:

“In support of the above observations, the Division Bench also placed reliance on Banerjee case (supra). We are afraid, the Division Bench was not correct in coming to the conclusion that being a reward for unblemished past service, Government servant retiring on the last day of the month would also be entitled for increment even after such increment is due after retirement. We have already made reference to all Rules governing the situation. There is no warrant to come to such conclusion. Increment is given (See Article 43 of CS Regulations) as a periodical rise to a Government employee for the good behavior in the service. Such increment is possible only when the appointment is “Progressive Appointment” and it is not a universal rule. Further, as per Rule 14 of the Pension Rules, a person is entitled for pa y, increment and other allowances only when he is entitled to receive pay from out of Consolid ated Fund of India and continues to be in Government service. A person who retires on the last working day would not be entitled for any increment falling due on the next day and payable next day thereafter (See Article 151 of CS Regulations}, because he would not answer the tests in these Rules. Reliance placed on Banerjee case (supra) is also in our considered opinion not correct because as observed by us, Banerjee case (supra) does not deal with increment, but deals with enhancement of DA by the Central Government to pensioners. Therefore, we are not able to accept the view taken by the Division Bench. We accordingly, overrule the jud gment in Malakondalah case (supra).”

4. In addition, subsequent to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the P. Ayyamperumal case, Hon’ble CAT Madras Bench vide its Orders dated 19.03.2019 in O.A.No.310/ 00309/ 2019 and O.A. No.310/ 00312/ 2019 and Order dated 27.03.2019 in 0.A. No.310/ 00026/ 2019 has also dismissed similar requests related with notional increment for pensionary benefits.

Source: DoPT

The post Court cases for granting notional increment for pensionary benefits in pursuance of the judgement dated 15.09.2017 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs Union of India appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Indian Banks’ Association

HR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

No.HR&IR/GMB/2020-21/9578

January 29, 2021

MD & CEOs of PSBs .

Dear Sir/Madam,

Release of Stagnation Increment notionally for the purpose of Pension under the 10th Bipartite Settlement/ Joint Note

In the 10th Bi-partite settlement / Joint note signed on 25.05.2015, an additional stagnation increment was considered for award staff and certain scales of officers to be notionally released from 1/11/2012 with monetary benefit to be paid from 1/5/2015. Those staff members who continued to be in the service post 30/4/2015 got monetary benefits in wages as well as benefits in their pension eligibility at the time of retirement. It was not explicitly mentioned in the bipartite/joint note that the benefit of notional stagnation increment would also be extended to those staff members who retired during the period from 1/11/2012 and 30/4/2015. While some banks have also extended the benefit to retirees, others have not extended the benefit of notional stagnation increment to those staff members who retired during the period from 1/11/2012 to 30/4/2015.

2. We have been receiving references from few banks, Officers, and Workmen Unions wherein they have stated that there is a need to clarify to banks that the benefit of notional increment should also be extended to all those staff members/officers who retired from the services during the period from 1/11/2012 to 30/4/2015.

3. The matter was placed in the meeting of the IBA Standing Committee on HR held on 11.01.2021. The Committee after detailed deliberations noted that some banks after obtaining a legal opinion, have already extended the benefit of notional stagnation increment for a pension to workmen and officers who retired during the period from 01.11.2012 to 30.04.2015. Accordingly, to have an industry level uniformity, it was decided that the banks with the approval of their respective boards can extend the benefit of notional stagnation increment for the purpose of pension only to the workmen and officers who were otherwise eligible and retired during the period from 01.11.2012 to 30.04.2015, with monetary benefit from 1/5/2015.

4. Banks may please be guided accordingly.

Warm regards,

Sd/-
Gopal Murli Bhagat
Deputy Chief Executive

,

The post Release of Stagnation Increment notionally for the purpose of Pension under the 10th Bipartite Settlement/ Joint Note appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

File No.20-13/2020-WL & Sports
Government of India
Ministry of Communications
Department of Posts (Welfare & Sports Section)

Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg
New Delhi-110001
Dated 24 .08.2020

To,

All Heads of Postal Circles

Sub: Time bound grant of special incentives to outstanding sports persons- reg

This is regarding time bound grant of below mentioned special incentives to outstanding sports persons/ officials:

a. Increment (Personal Pay): Reference is invited to DOPT letter No 14034 01/2013-Estt (D) dated 3rd Oct 2013, Para B (I). The grant of increment may be done at the earliest; suitably within same financial year.

b. Out of Turn Promotion: Reference is invited to DOPT letter No 14034/01/2013- Estt (D) dated 3. Oct 2013, Para C. Wherein, it has been stated that: -The entitlement of a sportsperson for out of turn promotion may be processed within a period of three months from the date of occurrence of event which entitles him/her for out of turn promotion. It will be responsibility of the concerned administrative Ministry/Department to consider a sportsperson for out of turn promotion within the prescribed time limit”. Accordingly, such cases may be processed within 3 months as per guidelines.

Also check: Promotion of Sports/Games

c. Cash Awards: Reference is invited to this office letter no. 8-01/2014- WI&Sports dated 20.06.2017 (read with letter 11-8/87-WL&Sp dated 18.05.1993). In this regard, since sports fund is allotted annually and audit for the same is conducted at end of financial year, it is best suited that all necessary claims of cash awards may be settled within the same financial year. It would also help this office to make budget estimates for next year.

2. This issues with approval of competent authority.

(Daisy Barba)
Director (W&S)

Source: DoP

The post Time bound grant of special incentives to outstanding central government sports persons appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-18030-2019

RAJENDRA PRASAD TIWARI
Vs
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Jabalpur, Dated : 03-12-2019

Shri Prashant Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents-State.

Heard.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

(i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents to pay the annual increment fell due on 01.07.2015 to the petitioner.

(ii) To direct the respondents to pay the annual increment i.e. pay scale of 20440-5400 and arrears due from 01/07/2015 with interest of 6% per annum.

(iii) To grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner.

On 30.09.2019, learned counsel for the respondents was granted time to seek instructions as to how the petitioner can be refused the benefit of grant of annual increment which is to be added on 1st of July of every year, but, no response has been filed.

Also check: Notional Increment on retirement 30th June DoPT – Madras High Court Order

The petitioner was retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2015. The increment, which was to be granted on 1st of July, 2015 was denied to him on the ground that he retired on 30.06.2016 and was not in service on 1st of July, 2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and others-WP No.15732/2017 decided on 15.09.2017, which was later on affirmed by the Supreme Court. Considering the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court it is clear that the petitioner cannot be denied the increment which was due on 01.07.2015 merely because he got retired on 30.06.2015, since he has completed full years of service and was eligible to get the said increment. Since the case on which the petitioner is placing reliance is squarely covered with the case of the petitioner, nothing is required to be adjudicated in this petition.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed directing respondents to extend the benefit of annual increment to the petitioner which was due on 01.07.2015 and accordingly the retiral dues of the petitioner be revised and he be also paid arrears within a period of three months from submitting certified copy of this order.

Also read: High Court Order transferring NPS Subscription into GPF account

Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA

The post Retired on 30th June is eligible for Increment Benefit with an annual interest rate of 6 per cent – Madhya Pradesh High Court appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

In Rajya Sabha on 10.12.2019, a question was raised regarding the determination of date of next increment for Central Government employees. The Minister of State for Finance Shri Anurag Singh Thakur has replied in written form as follows…

“In case an employee, promoted between 2nd January and 30th June (both inclusive), opts for pay fixation from the date of next increment i.e., 1st July, the first increment on the level to which he/she has been promoted will be on following 1st January”.

Also he said, as per Department of Expenditure’s O.M. No. 4-21/2017-IC/E.III(A) dated 28.11.2019, the employee promoted on any other date than the date of annual increment and exercises the option under FR 22(1)(a)(1) for fixation of pay from the date of accrual of next increment in the scale of pay in lower grade, would be allowed the 1st increment in promotional grade on 1st January 1st July as the case may be after completion of 6 months’ qualifying service after such fixation on 1st July / 1st January (i.e., the date of increment in lower grade).

Source: DoPT & MoF Orders

The post Calculation Date of Next Increment (DNI) in Promotion – Questions and Answers of Rajya Sabha 2019 appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

F.No.A-23011/36/2013-Ad.IIA
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

North Block, New Delhi,
Dated the 18 October, 2019

To,
All Pr. Chief Commissioners / Chief Commissioners / Director General under CBIC,

Subject: Grant of notional increment / re-fixation of pensionary benefits as per Hon’ble Madras High Court Order in WP No. 15732/2017 in the case of Sh.P.Ayyamperumal – regarding.

Sir/Madam,

1. I am directed to inform that the Order dated 15.09.2017 of the Hon’ble High passed in the matter of P.Ayyamperumal’s case (WP No.15732/ 2017) is in personam and not in in rem. Therefore, the CBIC has implemented the High Court’s order in personam after dismissal of review petition filed in the Supreme Court, for petitioner only which would not be quoted as precedent in future.

2. A number of cases on the similar grounds are pending at various fora, and similar demands from other similarly placed officers could also arise after Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dated 08.08.2019 in R.P.(C) No.1731/2019. Keeping this in mind, a request was made to DoPT seeking their opinion about the future course of action to be taken in case pertaining to similarly placed applicants and non ­applicants.

Also check: Grant of one notional increment/pension benefits to retirees those who retired on 30th June as per Madras High Court Order

3. DoPT has now informed that Deptt. of Legal Affairs have observed that:

“It is very clear that the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras passed in the matter of Sh. P.Ayyamperumal is in personam and not in rem.”

4. Based on the above, DoPT has informed that in so far as other similar cases are concerned, the same may be defended on following grounds:-

4.1 In so far as P. Ayyamperumal case is concerned, it is stated that the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras is in personam.

4.2 Further, the case of Sh. M Balasubramaniam referred by Hon’ble High Court in it’s judgment in P. Ayyamperumal case is related to Fundamental Rules of Tamil Nadu Government whereas P. Ayyamperumal case relates to Central Government Rules.

4.3. It is relevant to mention here that in a similar matter, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in year 2005, in C.Subbarao case, has inter-alia observed as under:

In support of the above observations, the Division Bench also placed reliance on Banerjee case (supra). We are afraid, the Division Bench was not correct in coming to the conclusion that being a reward for unblemished past service, Government servant retiring on the last day of the month would also be entitled for increment even after such increment is due after retirement. We have already made reference to all Rules governing the situation. There is no warrant to come to such conclusion. Increment is given (See Article 43 of CS Regulations) as a periodical rise to a Government employee for the good behavior in the service. Such increment is possible only when the appointment is “Progressive Appointment” and it is not a universal rule.

Also read: Grant of Notional Increment on completion of 12 Months of Service

Further, as per Rule 14 of the Pension Rules, a person is entitled for pay, increment and other allowances only when he is entitled to receive pay from out of Consolidated Fund of India and continues to be in Government service. A person who retires on the last working day would not be entitled for any increment falling due on the next day and payable next day thereafter (See Article 151 of CS Regulations), because he would not answer the tests in these Rules.

Reliance placed on Banerjee case (supra) is also in our considered opinion not correct because, as observed by us, Banerjee case (supra) does not deal with increment, but deals with enhancement of DA by the Central Government to pensioners. Therefore, we are not able to accept the view taken by the Division Bench. We accordingly overrule the judgment in Malakondaiah case (supra).

4.4 In addition, subsequent to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in P. Ayyamperumal’s case, Hon’ble CAT Madras Bench vide its orders dated 19.03.2019 in 0.A. No. 310/00309/ 2019 and O.A. No. 310/00312/ 2019 and Order dated 27.03.2019 in O.A. No. 310/00026/ 2019 has also dismissed the similar requests related with notional increment for pensionary benefits.

5. Accordingly, it is requested that all the pending / future court cases on the similar issue should be defended/ dealt with adequately on the above lines.

Yours faithfully,
sd/-
(A.K. Mishra)
Under Secretary to the Government of India

The post Madras High Court Order – Notional increment of pensionary benefits appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

No. 7/15/2007-CS.I(A) (Vol.II)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
(Department of Personnel and Training)

2nd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi
Dated 20th May, 2019

ORDER

WHEREAS, some Direct Recruit Assistant Section Officers (ASOs) of OGLE 2005 and 2006 have requested for antedating their increment dates as they were nominated in different batches for mandatory training;

AND WHEREAS, it is mandatory for every Direct Recruit ASO to undergo foundational training course first before they could be allotted any Ministry / Department;

AND WHEREAS, the first batch of ASOs belonging to OGLE 2005 and OGLE 2006 had joined in July 2008 and October 2009 respectively:

AND WHEREAS. the concerned ASOs who were nominated in later batches of mandatory training had not completed six months of service for earning Annual Increments unlike their other batchmates who were nominated in the first batch.

AND WHEREAS, representations were received in September, 2009 from some DR ASOs of OGLE 2005 requesting for ante dating their increments.

AND WHEREAS, the case was examined in this Department and it was not agreed to as the request was not in consonance with the Department of Expenditure’s O.M. dated 13.09.2008.

As per Para 2 clarification 1 (i) of Department of Expenditure’s OM dated 13.09.2008 specifically states as under:

As per Rules 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, there will be one uniform date of annual increment, viz. l July of every year. Government servants completing six months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st July will be eligible to be granted the increment. Accordingly, all Government servants who earned their last increments between 02 01 2005 and 01.01.2006 would get their next increment on 01.07 2006.-

AND WHEREAS, the ASOs of CGLE 2005 submitted fresh representation during 2015-2016 and representations were also received from ASOs of OGLE 2006 batch during the year 2016. The matter was re-examined in detail and it was found that no new facts were brought out to review the decision taken earlier and accordingly it was decided with the approval of the Competent Authority, to wait for the outcome of the case in WP No. 1738/2017 challenging the eligibility criteria for counting the approved service in ASO Grade which was and is still pending in High Court.

AND WHEREAS, an OA (100/3397/2018) was filed by some aggrieved DR ASOs in CAT, (PB), Delhi on the same grounds. CAT, PB vide order dated 11.09.2018 has disposed of the OA at the admission stage with directions to DOPT as under the respondents are directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the
representation of the applicants within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the this order. The OA is, accordingly, disposed of at the admission stage itself. “

AND WHEREAS, the concerned ASOs vide their representations had sought the following benefits:

i. In r/o CGLE-2005 batch, for grant of increment w.e.f 01.07.2009 instead of 01.07.2010
the date from which they have got the increment presently, because of the condition of having completed six months service thereon, as stipulated in DOE’s O.M. dated 13.09.18.
ii. In r/o CGLE-2006 batch, for grant of increment w.e.f 01.07.2010 instead of 01.07.2011 the date from which they have got the increment presently, because of the condition of having completed six month service thereon 1 as stipulated in DOE’s O.M. dated 13.09.18.
iii. To fix the pay notionally from the actual date of joining of the first candidate of their batches;
iv. To consider their service counted from the date of joining of the first candidates for the purpose of pension and qualifying service.

AND WHEREAS, the matter was again examined in this Department and it was observed that a Government Servant is eligible to draw the pay only from the date of assumption of charge. The concerned ASOs were not eligible for pay parity with their batchmates as they attended mandatory training in different batches. As such, they had not completed six months of service for earning annual increment along with their other batchmates who were nominated in the first batch, in terms of Department Of Expenditure’s O.M. dated 13.09.2008. Thus, they were not eligible for antedating of increment at par with their batchmates.

AND WHEREAS, it is also observed that the concerned ASOs of 2005 & 2006 batches who were nominated in the later batches of training have however been given all due benefits like approved service. eligibility for SO-LDCE, which accrued to their batchmates who were appointed in the earlier batches.

AND WHEREAS, the matter was examined in consultation with D/o Expenditure. An interim reply vide letter dated 31.12.2018 in light of directions of CAT, was also sent to all applicants and counsel for applicants and respondents as well.

AND WHEREAS. Department of Expenditure has examined the case and found the claim for antedating of increment not in conformity with the extant instructions and rejected the claim for ante¬dating of increment in respect of the said ASOs.

NOW THEREFORE, it has been decided that since the instant claims of the DR ASOs of CGLE 2005 and 2006 batches are not in consonance with the extant rules and the fact that these representations were examined in 2009 and rejected on the same ground and no new ground has been brought forth in these representations, hence the claim is hereby rejected as it is devoid of merit.

(George D. Toppo)
Under Secretary to the Government of India

Source: DoPT

The post DoPT – Request of antedating of increment by some DR ASOs of 2005 and 2006 appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Date of next increment- Rule 10 of Army Officers and Air Force Officers Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Officers Pay Regulations, 2017; Rule 10 of Army, Air Force and Military Nursing Service Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Pay Regulations, 2017 and Rule 9 of the Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of Air Force Rules, 2017

No.PC-1(20)/2017-D(Pay/Services) Part-II
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
Sena Bhawarn, New Delhi

dated the 11th March, 2019

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Date of next increment- Rule 10 of Army Officers and Air Force Officers Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Officers Pay Regulations, 2017; Rule 10 of Army, Air Force and Military Nursing Service Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Pay Regulations, 2017 and Rule 9 of the Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of Air Force Rules, 2017– regarding.

The undersigned is directed to invite attention to Rule 10 of Army Officers and Air Force Officers Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Officers Pay Regulations, 2017; Rule 10 of Army, Air Force and Military Nursing Service Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Pay Regulations, 2017 and Rule 9 of the Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of Air Force Rules, 2017 which provides, inter alia, that there shall be two dates for increment namely 1st January and 1st July of every year, instead of the provision of one date of increment on the 1st July during the 6th Pay Commission pay structure. The Rule/Regulation further provides that an employee shall be entitled to only one annual increment either on 1st January or 1st July depending on the date of appointment, promotion or grant of financial upgradation. The Sub-Rule/Regulation (2) thereof provides that increment in respect of an employee appointed or promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under MACP during the period between the 2nd day of January and 1st day of July (both inclusive) shall be granted on 1st day of 4 January and the increment in respect Hof an employee appointed or promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under MACP during the period between 2nd day of July and 1st day of January (both inclusive) shall be granted ork1st day of July.

2. The proviso to Sub-Rule/Regulation (2) of Rule 10 of Army Officers and Air Force Officers Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Officers Pay Regulations, 2017; Rule 10 of Army, Air Force and Military Nursing Service Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Pay Regulations, 2017 and Rule 9 of the Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of Air Force Rules, 2017, provides that the next increment after drawal of increment on 1st day of July 2016 shall accrue as on 1st day of July 2017.

3. During the regime of pay structure immediately prior to 01/01/2016, when the annual increment was admissible uniformly on 1st July every year; the increment was admissible on July, provided the condition of 6 months service was fulfilled. Thereafter, the next increment used to be given after a period of 12 months.

Accordingly, keeping in view the principle followed during the period before 1.1.2016 immediately prior to coming into force of the Army Officers and Air Force Officers Pay Rules, 2017; Navy Officers pay Regulations, 2017; Army, Air Force and Military Nursing Service pay Rules, 2017; Navy pay Regulations, 2017 and Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of Air Force Rules, 2017, which has been modified in the revised pay structure in ‘terms of Rule/Regulation 10 of the Army Officers and Air Force Officers Pay Rules, 2017; Navy Officers Pay Regulations, 2017; Army, Air Force and Military Nursing Service Pay Rules, 2017; Navy Pay Regulations, 2017 and Rule 9 of the Non- Combatants (Enrolled) of Air Force Rules, 2017 by way of 2 dates of

increment on 1st January and 1st July, it is clarified that in case an employee is promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under the MACP scheme on January or 1st July, where the pay is fixed in the Level applicable to the post on which promotion is made in accordance with the Rule/Regulation 12 of the Army Officers and Air Force Officers pay Rules, 2017; Navy Officers pay Regulations, 2017; Army, Air Force and Military Nursing Service pay Rules, 2017; Navy pay Regulations, 2017 and Rule 11 of the Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of Air Force Rules, 2017 the first increment in the Level applicable to the post on which promotion is made shall accrue on the following 1st July Or January, as the case may be, provided a period of 6th months qualifying service is strictly fulfilled. The next increment thereafter shall, however, accrue only after completion of one year.

5. This issues with the concurrence of Defence (Finance) vide its ID No.1(3)/2018/P-III/AG-291/PA dated 28.02.2019.

sd/-
(Arun Kumar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India

To,
1. The Chief of Army Staff
2. The Chief of Naval Staff
3.The Chief of Air Staff

The post Rule 10 of Army Officers and Air Force Officers Pay Rules – MoD Orders appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.