North Block, New Delhi
Dated 28 October, 2024

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Grant of notional increment on 1st July/1st January to All India Services officers who retire on 30th June/31st December respectively for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits.

  I am directed to say that in reference to the above-mentioned subject, action may be taken in the matter of grant of notional increment to All India Services officer as per the instructions provided in this Department’s Office Memorandum No.19/116/2024 -Pers.Pol.(Pay)(Pt) dated 14.10.2024 (copy enclosed).

Enclosed: (1)

Yours sincerely,

Sd/-
Bhupinder Pal Singh
Under Secretary to Government of India

Annexure: Grant of notional increment on 1st July/1st January to the employees who retired on 30th June / 31st December – Implementation Order by DoP&T

The post DoPT – Grant of notional increment on 1st July/1st January to All India Services officers who retire on 30th June/31st December respectively for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

[DoP&PW OM No. 42/11/2023-P&PW(D) dated 03.04.2024]

Sub:- Minutes of the 33rd SCOVA meeting held under the Chairmanship of Hon’ ble MOS(PP) on 22.02.2024, at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi-reg

(33.3) Grant of increment to the retiring employees on the date of their retirement, if the date of their increment follows their date of retirement – Amendment to the rules governing grant of increment & extension of the amended rule to pensioners as a one-time measure

Grant of increment to a pensioner is contrary to the personnel policy of the Government” may perhaps be because of the reason that the Rules governing grant of increment stipulate that the employee must be on duty on the date on which he earns an increment and if the employee is not on duty, the increment shall be granted from the date of resumption of duty. Therefore, if the date of increment of an employee falls on the next date of his retirement, the increment that would have been allowed to him but for his retirement is not granted for the reason that the employee, having retired from service, is not on duty on the date on which the increment would have been otherwise granted to him.

The provisions of the rules, as they stand now, have made such employees ineligible for increment even after rendering 365 days of service after earning the last increment. The Rules on grant of increment have undergone many changes and modifications have been made in the past on several occasions, which were to the advantage of the employees and the retiring employees as well. Hence, suitable amendment may be considered

Discussion/Decision taken in the meeting

Joint Secretary, DoPT informed that as per the existing rule provisions regulating annual increment, fulfillment of the following conditions is mandatory for a Government servant to earn the annual increment :-

• (i) the Government servant must be in service on the date on which the increment falls due and;
• (ii) he should have rendered satisfactory work and displayed good conduct during the one year period preceding the date on which the increment falls due.

He further added that the demand for amending the existing rule provisions governing annual increment is apparently based on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dated 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 @ SLP (C) No. 6185/2020-KPTCL VS. CP Mundinamani & Ors.

DoPT representative also informed that the matter was examined in consultation with other nodal Ministries/Departments like Department of Expenditure, Department of Legal Affairs etc. Further, Ld. Attorney General of India has also been consulted in the matter and based on the advice received, efforts are being made to seek clarification from the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the relevant issues-including rule provisions-which need elucidation. Further action, as may be required in the wake of Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, can be taken on completion on the said exercise.

The Chairman, SCOVA directed DoPT to examine this issue in consultation with Ld. Attorney General expeditiously.

(Action : Department of Personnel & Training)

The post 33rd SCOVA meeting – Grant of increment to the retiring employees on the date of their retirement, if the date of their increment follows their date of retirement appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Railway Board advises not to challenge any adverse judgement pronounced by any lower court/ Tribunal before higher courts by way of filing W.Ps/SLPs

MOST IMMEDIATE
COURT CASE MATTER

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)

No. PC-V1/2020 /Misc./01

New Delhi, dated: 10.07.2023

The General Managers/ Principal Financial Advisors,
All Zonal Railways & Production Units

Sub: Grant of notional increment (as due on 1st July) for the pensionary benefits to those employees who had retired on 30th of June before drawing the same – Clarification reg.

Ref: Board’s letter No. PC-V1/2020/ CC/13 dated 20.06.2023.

Attention is invited to Board’s letter under reference (copy enclosed) whereby all Zonal Railways/ PUs were advised to file a Miscellaneous Application before the concerned Tribunal/ Court in consultation with the contesting counsel seeking further time for compliance of orders granting the benefit of notional increment to the applicants.

2. In spite of above, a number of references are still being received in this office from many railways seeking clarification regarding further course of action to be adopted in the cases on notional increment which are either pending before various courts of law or have been dismissed granting the benefit of notional increment.

3. In this connection, it is stated that recently a proposal for filing SLP against the common order dated 15.12.2022 pronounced by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in a batch of Writ Petitions was placed before one of the Ld. ASG whereon it has been opined that after taking due consideration of the facts and legal aspects including the new developments as to the settled law pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India it is not a fit case to file an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

4. Considering the above opinion of Ld. ASG furnished in light of Hon’ble Apex Court’s orders dated 11.04.2023 & 19.05.2023, it would be a futile exercise to defend any such cases or to challenge any adverse judgement pronounced by any Tribunal/ Lower Courts in Higher Courts/ Apex Court.

5. Accordingly, all Zonal Railways/PUs are hereby advised not to challenge any adverse judgement pronounced by any lower court/ Tribunal before higher courts by way of filing W.Ps/SLPs. Instead, further time may be sought from the concerned Tribunal/ Court for compliance of such orders as already advised vide Board’s letter under reference. The further course of action will be communicated separately on being advised by Deptt. of Personnel & Training.

6. This issues with the approval of the competent authority.

DA: As above

(Jaya Kumar G)
Dy. Director, Pay Commission – VII & HRMS
Railway Board

The post Grant of notional increment (as due on 1st July) for the pensionary benefits to those employees who had retired on 30th of June before drawing the same appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

BSNL

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
[A Government of India Enterprise]
Corporate Office, Taxation Section

First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan
Janpath, NewDelhi-110 002
Dated: 18.02.2020

No.48-2 / 2021-Pen (B)

To

All Heads of Circles/ Telecom Districts/ Regions/ Projects/
Telecom Stores /Telecom Factories & Other Administrative Offices
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Sub: Grant of annual increment falling due on the next day of superannuation/ retirement, for the purpose of pensionary benefits – Guidelines regarding.

Sir,

Of late, this Office has been receiving many Court Cases as well as letters from various Telecom Circles seeking guidelines for disposal of representations received from retired employees, regarding grant of national increment falling due on the next day of superannuation/ retirement etc. for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

2. . In this regard , I am directed to forward herewith DOP&T O.M . No. 19/2 /2018-Estt (Pay-I) dated 03/02/2021 , along with its enclosures, with regard to grant of 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.

3. DOP&T vide its aforesaid O.M has mentioned that 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 is in personal in nature. In this regard, a brief note reflecting the Government’s stand on the instant issue has been attached as Annexure-1.

4 . Further, it has been mentioned that in a similar case, the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court, vide judgement dated 29/03/2019, while dismissing the SLP (C) Dy. No. 6468/2019 filed by DOT against the judgement dated 03/05/2017 of Hon ‘ble High Court, Lucknow Bench in W .P. 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 day s in filing the special leave petition. We don’t see any reason to condone the delay. The Special leave petition is dismissed on delay, keeping all the questions of law open.”

5. Since the question of law on the instant issue is open and not yet decided, the decision for implementation of the judgment 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.

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

5. Accordingly, all the Telecom Circles/ Other Administrative Units/Cadre Controlling Units of BSNL Corporate Office are requested to dispose of the grievances/ representations received from various retired employees of BSNL in the light of the aforesaid guidelines issued by DOP&T. Further, where Court Cases have been filed by the retired employees in various Courts of Law, for grant of notional increment after retirement for pensionary benefits, it is, requested to defend these Courts cases in the above light and also to suitably incorporate the guidelines issued by DOP&T vide it’s O.M. dated 03/02/2021 while preparing the Counter Reply in such cases. Further, since the issue involves grant of pension and pensionary benefits, all the Telecom Circles/Administrative Units are requested to consult the concerned CCA Unit, while defending the Court Cases pertaining to their respective Circle/ Unit.

This issue with the approval of the Competent Authority .

Enclosures: As above .

Yours faithfully,

(Sudhanshu Shekhar Ray)
Asstt. General Manager (Estt)

The post Grant of annual increment falling due on the next day of superannuation/ retirement, for the purpose of pensionary benefits appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Court Case/ Priority

F.No.2-14/ 2020-PAP
Ministry of Communications
Department of Posts
[Establishment Division/ P.A.P. Section]

Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
Dated: 01.01.2021

To

All Head of Circles

Sub: Court cases relating to grant of one Notional Increment to employees who have completed one year of service as on their retirement on Superannuation falling on 30th June of various year and further revision in Basic pension and pensionary benefits thereof.

This is regarding various court cases on the above mentioned subject filed by retired employees of this Department before various Tribunals. This section is also in receipt of representations from retired employees of the similar subject matter. Department of Personnel and Training has issued some guidelines and instructions on the subject matter, the same was circulated to all HOCs by pension section letter No 100-10/2018-Pen dated 20.01.2020.

2. In the meantime some circles have forwarded the decisions of various Tribunals for seeking further guidance for implementation of orders etc. The whole issue has been examined in the light of guidelines/ instructions issued by nodal ministry DoPT in such cases.

3. In this regard, I am directed to forward herewith copy of Department of Personnel and Training, OM 1411655/2020-Estt (Pay-IT dated 18.02.2020, requesting to defend/ challenge the cases on behalf of Union of India , keeping the observations of DoPT in view.

4. It is hence requested to defend/challenge the cases in consultation with Government Counsel, keeping the observations of DoPT in view. Individual representations/ referred cases in this regard may be addressed as per the guidelines of DoPT It is also requested to keep this Directorate apprised about further development in these cases periodically.

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

DA: As above

(D. Trigaths)
Assistant Director General (Estt.)

Download grant of one Notional Increment PDF

The post Court Case DoP – Grant of one Notional Increment to employees who have completed one year of service as on their retirement on Superannuation falling on 30th June of various year and further revision in Basic pension and pensionary benefits appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

BHARAT PENSIONERS’ SAMAJ
All India Federation of Pensioners’ Associations
2/13-A- LGF Backside, Jangpura – A,
New Delhi – 110014

NoBPS/SG/ Notional increment/2020/ 10

Date: 01.12.2020

The Secretary,
GOI ; Ministry of finance – Department of Revenue

The Secretary,
GOI, M/O Personnel, PG & Pensions -DOPT

Subject: Court Cases on the issue of 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.

Reference : 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 20th November 2020.

Sir,

With reference to Prara one of F. No. A-23011/36/2013-Ad.IIA GOL, M/O finance -Department of Revenue CB of Indirect Taxes & Customs dtd 20.11.2020 ‘I am directed to refer to CBIC’s letter of even number dated 18.10.2019 (copy enclosed) on the subject mentioned above whereby you have been informed that the competent authority in consultation with Department of personnel and training and Department of Legal Affairs has decided to implement the Order dated 15.09.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the matter of WP No. 15732/2017, P. Ayyamperumal Vs. Union of India, in personam and not in  rem and, therefore, it is not required to be quoted as precedent in future.

Bharat Pensioners Samaj, is of the opinion that while drafting the said Para concerned officers/ official inadvertently overlooked the following facts:

1. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment in W.P.(C) 10509/2019 GOPAL SINGH ….. Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS OR DE R 23.01.2020 Paras 8. “” More recently, this Court in its decision dated 13th January, 2020 in W.P(C) 5539/2019 (Arun Chhibber v. Union of India) has discussed the judgment in P. Ayyamperumal at some length in the context of the prayer of an officer of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) who had retired on 30th June, 2007 for notional increment. The Court rejected the contention of the Respondents therein that the judgment in P. Ayyamperuam had to be treated as one that was in persona and not in rem.” and the fact that the SLP filed in the Supreme Court against this Delhi High Court judgment regarding notional increment vide SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 13959/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-01-2020 in WP(C) No. 10509/2019 passed by the High Court Of Delhi ) UOI&ORS VS GOPAL SINGH is dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court.

Grant of notional increment/ re-fixation of pensionary benefits as per Hon’ble Madras High Court Order

2,In C.L.Pasupathy v. Engineer in Chief (WRO)reported in 2009 (2) MLJ 491, Hon’ble High court of Madras has considered the expressions, “judgment ‘in rem’ & a judgment ‘in personam’ In Para 29 of the said judgment honorable court observed as follows :

“29. Courts have held that, “Judgment in rem”, operates on a thing or status rather than against the person and binds all persons to the extent of their interest in the thing, whether or not they were parties to the proceedings. The judgment “in rem”, as distinguished from judgment “in Personam” is an adjudication of some particular thing or subject matter, which is the subject of controversy, by a competent Tribunal, and having the binding effect of all persons having interests, whether or not joined as parties to the proceedings, in so far as their interests in the “res” are concerned.

In determining whether a judgment is “in rem”, the effect of the judgment is to be considered and it is tested by matters of substance, rather than by measure of any particular draft or form”

In short judgment in rem & in Personam can be defined as follows:

Judgment in rem: Judgment in rem is adjudication pronounced upon the status ofa subject matter, person or a thing by a competent court to the world generally.

Judgment in Personam: Judgments in Personam are all the ordinary judgments not affecting the status of any subject matter, any person or anything.

It is humbly submitted that the judgment dated 15.09.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the matter of WP No. 15732/2017, P. Ayyamperumal Vs. Union of India squarely Fits in this definition which has been confirmed by the Honourable High Court Of Delhi through its decision dated 13th January, 2020 in W.P.(C) 5539/2019 (Arun Chhibber v. Union of India where in the Honourable court rejected the respondent’s (UOJ) contention that the judgment in P. Ayyamperuam had to be treated as one that was in persona and not in rem.”

Sir, The Democracy of our Country gives highest regards to the judicial pronouncements on their attaining legal finality and no one including DLA /DOPT has any authority to go contrary to it or misinerpret.

Madras High Court Order – Notional increment of pensionary benefits

In the end BPS beg to remind the bureaucracy of oath to Preamble to constitution of India on and request them to ensure Justice and equality in the matter of pensioners/ Sr Citizens. Not that only those who win through courts get the advantage and the other similarly placed who cannot afford to approach the court are deprived of the same benefit inspite of honorable Supreme court pronouncement not to do so.

Thanking you
Yours truly,

S C Maheswari
Secy Genl. Bharat Pensioners Samaj

The post Grant of notional increment/ re-fixation of pensionary benefits as per Hon’ble Madras High Court Order – BHARAT PENSIONERS SAMAJ 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 20th November , 2020.

To

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

Subject: Miscellaneous Representations and Court Cases on the issue of 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,

I am directed to refer to CBIC’s letter of even number dated 18.10.2019 (copy enclosed) on the subject mentioned above whereby you have been informed that the competent authority in consultation with Department of personnel and training and Department of Legal Affairs has decided to implement the Order dated 15.09.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the matter of WP No. 15732/2017, P. Ayyamperumal Vs. Union of India, in personam and not in rem and, therefore, it is not required to be quoted as precedent in future.

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

2. It is noted that a number of representations from similarly placed retired officers are being received in the Board. Several court cases in this regard have also been filed at various fora by the retired officers. Therefore, all the cadre controlling authorities were requested, vide letter dated 18.10.2019 referred above, that all the pending/future court cases on the similar issue should be defended/dealt with adequately on the lines as suggested by DoP&T. However, despite this, most of the cadre controlling authorities are forwarding the court cases/representations filed by the similarly placed officers to the Board for providing para-wise comments/necessary action, contrary to the instructions issued vide letter of even numb er 18.10.2019.

3. In view of above, all the Cadre Controlling Authorities are again requested to defend all the court cases and dispose all the representations on the issue of notional increment at their end and also defend all the court cases adequately on the following grounds:

I. As per Rule 10 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, the date of annual increment is fixed uniformly as 1st July of every year. Employees completing six months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st July are eligible for the next increment. The increment could not be granted to the officer retiring on 30th June, as he was not in service on 1st July.

II. DoP&T have made the following observation vide their O.M. dated 16.08.2019 and 11.11.2019:-

i. On the issue of date of retirement of government servant, FR 56(a) which inter- alia provides as under may be referred:

Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years:
Provided that a Government servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years.

ii. Further, so far as P. Ayyamperumal case is concerned, which has been referred in the Writ Petitions, it is stated that

a. The Hon’ble High Court judgment in P. Ayyamperumal case is in personam and is contrary to the personnel policy of Government of India.

b. Further, case of M. Balasubramaniam referred by the Hon’ble High Court in its judgment in P. Ayyamperumal case is related to the Fundamental Rules of Tamil Nadu Gernment whereas P Ayaamperumal case relates to Central Government Rules. As per provisions under Tamil Nadu Fundamental rules 26(a), the annual increments of the Govt. Servants are regulated in four quarters viz. 1st January, 1st April, 1st July and 1st October. And for the Central Govt, it is done
annually on 1st July only.

c. While adjudicating the issue whether a government servant who retires on the last day of the preceding month and whose annual increment falls due on the first of the succeeding month is entitled for sanction of annual increment for the purpose of pension and gratuity, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the year 2005 in C. Subba Rao case had inter alia observed the following:

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 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 Malakondalah case (supra).’

Hence, there is another High Court judgment which lays contrary principles on this issue.

iii. In addition, the following observation of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while giving its judgment dated 23.10.2018 in the case of UOI and others vs. G.C. Yadav are also noteworthy :

‘So far as the rejection of the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India is concerned, the same was by a summary order, and while dismissing the SLP preferred by the Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras on the facts of that case. The Supreme Court did not consider, and did not put its seal of approval on the legal principle involved in P. Ayyamperumal (supra). ‘

iv. That the Hyderabad Bench of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal had dismissed the OA Nos. 331/2019 and 332/2019 praying for the same relief by the applicant., vide its order dated 04.06.2019.

v. That Hon’ble CAT Madras Bench, subsequent to the judgement of Hon’ble High court of madras in P. Ayyamperumal case, vide its Orders dated 19.03.2019 in O.A. 310/00309/2019 and O.A. No. 310/00312/2019 and Order dated 27.03.2019 in O.A. No. 310/00026/2019 has dismissed the similar requests related with notional increment for pensionary benefits.

vi. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 29.03 .2019, 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. “

III. As far as the case of P. Ayyamperumal is concerned, it is informed that after rejection of SLP filed by Union of India in Hon’ble Apex Court, a review petition against the order dated 23.07 .2018 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Ayyamperumal was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.08.2019 dismissed the instant review petition. Since the apex court dismissed the review petition of the department, the competent authority decided to implement the Order dated 15.09.2017 of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 15732/2017, directing to grant one notional increment to petitioner retiring on 30th June for the purpose of pensionary benefits in personam for petitioner only to avoid the contempt proceedings as indicated in the said letter as referred to in para I above.

IV. Department of Legal Affairs, which was also consulted, while tendering advice in the matter of P. Ayyamperumal, has cited the case of Kunhayammed and others vs State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded the following propositions :-

“An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non- speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.

If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e. gives reasons for refitsing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the apex court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties. “

V. Keeping in view the above, DOLA opined 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 m, therefore, the Administrative Department may implement the order in personam.”

Madras High Court Order – Notional increment of pensionary benefits

VI. Referring to the above principles laid down in Kunhayamrned (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij and Anr. (2010) 8 SCC 701, held as under:-

“Thus, according to the law laid down by the Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, it is clear that dismissal of a matter by this Court at the threshold, with non­ speaking order, would not fall in the category of binding precedent. Meaning thereby that the impugned order of the Division Bench can still be challenged on merits by the appellant Board. Thus, the earlier orders of the High Court and this Court passed in Raninder Singh Patpatias case, creates no bar from re-examining the matter on merits.”

VII. From the above, it is clear that doctrine of merger is not applicable to in limine dismissal of SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and would not attract the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India to the said order.

4. In view of above, it is again requested that all the pending/ future court cases/representation on the similar issue should be defended/ dealt with adequately on the above lines on behalf of all the respondents in terms of Board’s instruction issued vide letter F.No. C-18012/6/ 2013-Ad.IIB dated 09.05.2016. Reference to the Board should be made only if any additional policy issue is involved.

Encl: As above.

Yours faithfully,
(Rajendra Kumar)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India

The post Grant of notional increment/ re-fixation of pensionary benefits as per Hon’ble Madras High Court Order appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

PREMATURE RETIREMENT

BY Speed Post.

No SG/BPS/notional/ 2020/5

Date: 16.10.2020

To
Dr. C. Chandramouli,
IAS

Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training, North Block,
New Delhi – 110001

Subject: Contempt of Court.

Sir,

Since the year 1922 onwards FR 56 read with Article 14 of Civil Service Regulations provided that the date of retirement had to be the relevant date of birth on completion of the age of retirement on superannuation. In other words the date of (i) attaining the age of superannuation, (ii) retirement and (iii) commencement of pension used to be the same. This was the Rule governing retirement on superannuation prior to 3rd CPC.

Check: Premature retirement of central government employees before the date of superannuation

2 a) Subsequently 3rd CPC recommendation was accepted by the Government of India Based on the accepted recommendation, the then Department ofAdministrative Reforms (now DOPT),issued orders on the 24th November, 1973 laying down that the Government servants shall retire from service with effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which their date of retirement fell.

2 b) Clarificatory OM dated 29th June, 1974 was issued without the approval of the concerned State Minister, that all those born on the 1st would retire in the afternoon of the last day of the previous month.Accordingly FR56(a) created.

3. Consequently, those born on the 1st Jan, 1928/1938/1946/1956, were deprived of the benefits of the 4th/ 5th/6th/7th CPC respectively. However, those who could knock the door of the court got favorable judgements.Annexure2 gives the details of court cases with positive outcome.

Latest in the series is the case of Union Of India vs M L. Punshi & Am; IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI in WP (C) No. 288512000 on the 191hJuly, 2010. In this case the court did not agree with the contention of the Union of India and observed ” In short, we are of the view that in the present cases the effective date of retirement would be 01.04.1995 and not 31.03.1995.” SLP filed by the Government against order of the High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Also check: MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY – MACP Supreme Court Order – Heard & Reserved – Order dated 23 Jan 2020

4. In the case of lnder Pal Yadav Vs Union of lndia [ l985(2) SCC 648), in SLP-IA No. 77457/2017 dated 01.09.2017, in the Civil Appeal No. 3744 of 2016 UOI Vs Balbir Singh Tur & Anr dated 08.12.2017 and UOI VS Prithvi singh dated 24.4.2018 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that ” We find that there are several matters in which the aggrieved employees have been going to the Tribunal, then to the High Court and thereafter those matters are brought before this Court. Once the question, in principle, has been settled, it is only appropriate on the part of the Government of India to issue a circular so that people need not unnecessarily travel either to the Tribunal or the High Court or this Court and it will save the time of the Court and the Administrative Departments apart from avoiding unnecessary and avoidable expenditure”.

Also check: Retirement guide for a central government employees

5. The DOPT, has not so far honoured the supreme court pronouncement referred to above , consequently it has rendered itself liable to be taken-up for contempt of the court, as well as for putting lot of retirees(Sr Citizens) to financial loss. DOPT, contrary to the observation of the Supreme Court is forcing Pensioners who are in the evening of their lives to knock the doors of CAT, High court/Supreme court. Presently quite a number of cases filed by pensioners born on the 1st January,/ 30th of June are pending in the courts.

6. Kindly look into and ensure that the pronouncement of the Supreme court as brought out in foregoing line is implemented in letter & spirit so that that thousands of aggrieved who do not have means to approach the courts are not deprived of their legitimate dues.

Also check: Important Supreme court Judgement – MACP should be given effect from 01.01.2016

7. A detailed background note is annexed.

With regards
Yours truly,

DA/2.Annexures

S. C Maheshwari
Secy Genl. Bharat Pensioners Samaj
Mobile No 9868488199
Email id: bharatpensioner @gmail.com

The post Contempt of Court – Date of birth on completion of the age of retirement on superannuation appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

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

File No.PC-VI/2018/ R-I/1 -Part(1)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)

NO. PC V1 / 2018/R-I/1 Pt.

New Delhi, dated 21.05.2020

The General Manager
All Indian Railways and Production Units
(As per standard mailing list)

Sub: Grant of annual increment due on 1st July to the employees retiring on 30th June of the year

A number of representations are being received in this office seeking grant of one notional increment as due on 1st July in favour of employee retiring on 30th June before drawing the same, exclusively for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

Also check: 7th Pay Commission Annual Increment

2. As the Railways are aware, the annual increment is granted to railway employees on completion of laid down qualifying service for the purpose. Based on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, as accepted by the Government of India, Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 were notified on the lines of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. As per Rule 10 of above Rules, it was stipulated that there will be a uniform date of annual increment, viz. 1st July of every year and the employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1 of July will be eligible to be granted the increment. There has been no change in the above rule / extant policy so as to enable grant of increment (notional or actual) on 30th June, where it was due on the following 1st July.

3. In the various representations being received in this office, certain Judgments in the case of Shri Ayyamperumal, an employee of Department of Revenue are being cited. As the details of above court matter and policy decision of concerned nodal departments were not available in this office, the matter was referred to concerned departments of Government of India seeking their advice / guidelines.

4. DOP&T vide their O.M dated 11.11.2019 have stated that the Judgment passed in the case of Shri P. Ayyamperumal is in personam. Further, the judgment pronounced by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in P. Ayyamperumal case, as endorsed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, is based on the decision in the case of M. Balasubramaniam, which was related to Fundamental Rules of State Govt. However Central Government employees are governed by Central Government Rules. Further, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C. Subbarao case has inter-alia observed that “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.” A copy of DOP&T O.M dated 11.11.2019 is enclosed herewith.

5. The Railways are therefore advised to take further necessary action to dispose off the pending representations on the issue based on above position and advice of DOP&T. The pending court cases may also be defended accordingly. Further, in case any clarification / inputs are required relating to railway Fundamental Rules and Railway Pension Rules, Finance (Estt.) dte. may also please be consulted being the nodal directorate on these aspects. This issues with the approval of DG/HR, Railway Board.

DA: As above

(U. K. Tiwari)
Joint Director, Pay Commission
Railway Board

The post Grant of annual increment due on 1st July to the employees retiring on 30th June of the year 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.