No.19/116/2024-Pers.Pol.(Pay)(Pt)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training

North Block, New Delhi
Dated the 14th October, 2024.

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Grant of notional increment on 1st July/ 1st January to the employees who retired from Central Govt.service on 30th June / 31st December respectively for the purpose of calculating their pensionary benefits – regarding.

The undersigned is directed to say that in terms of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revise Pay) Rules, 2006, notified by D/o Expenditure vide Notification No.G.S.R.622 (E) dated 29.08.2008, date of annual increment was made uniform viz. 1st July of every year with effect from 01.01.2006. It was subsequently decided vide Rule 10 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Revise Pay) Rules, 2016, notified by D/o Expenditure vide Notification No.G.S.R.721 (E) dated 25.07.2016, that there shall be two dates for grant of increment namely 1st January and 1st July of every year.

2. Hon’ble High Court of Madras in its Order dated 15.09.2017 in W.P.No.15732 of 2017-P.Ayyamperumal Vs Union of India & Ors. allowed grant of notional increment to the petitioner on the day following the date of his retirement from service for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits. Judgement in the case of Shri P.Ayyamperumal was implemented in personam. Following this, D/o Personnel and Training (DOPT) received a number of representations from the employees who superannuated on 30th June/ 31st December claiming similar benefit. Large number of Court cases have also been filed before Hon’ble Administrative Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court on the subject matter.

3. The issue was examined in consultation with the nodal authorities concerned and with due regard to the relevant provisions in the Fundamental Rules (FRs) which regulate grant of increment to the Central Government employees. It is pertinent to note that FR 9(21) (a) defines ‘pay’ as the amount sanctioned to a Government servant for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre.FR 17 provides that subject to any exceptions specifically made in these Rules, an employee shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of that post and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. Further, FR 24 stipulates that an increment may be withheld from a Government servant if his conduct has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. To summarise these Rule provisions, for availing the benefit of an increment on the date of its accrual, an employee should be in service, should have rendered satisfactory work and should have displayed good conduct during the period of qualifying service.

4. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 (@SLP (C) No.6185/2020) – Director (Admn.and HR), KPTCL Vs C.P.Mundinamani & Ors, upheld the Orders passed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No.4193/2017 allowing grant of one annual increment, which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering services during preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently, for the purpose of calculating the retiral benefits. However, Union of India was not among the Parties in the said case.

and 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. As specifically mentioned in the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, grant of the notional increment on 1st January/1st July shall be reckoned only for the purpose of calculating the pension admissible and not for the purpose of calculation of other pensionary benefits.

8. It may also be noted that these instructions are being issued in compliance of the Interim Orders dated 06.09.2024 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MA Dy.No.2400/2024 without prejudice to the legal stand of the Union of India in the matter and without prejudice to any change of law in this regard.Further, the action taken shall be subject to the final outcome of the Review Petition (Dy.No.36418/2024) pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is expected to be heard by the Apex Court in the week commencing 04.11.2024,

9. This issues with the concurrence of D/o Expenditure vide their Dy.No.08- 09/2019-E.III.A(Vol.III) (3969602) dated 08.10.2024 and D/o Legal Affairs vide Computer Dy.No.E 128445 dated 30.09.2024.

10. Hindi Version will follow.

(Mahesh Kumar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India

To
All Ministries/ Departments of Government of India.

Download DoP&T O.M. dated 14.10.2024 purpose of calculating their pensionary benefits

The post Grant of notional increment on 1st July/ 1st January to the employees who retired from Central Govt service on 30th June / 31st December respectively for the purpose of calculating their pensionary benefits – DoPT appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

File no. 2/3/2023-EC-IV(SC) /190-E
Directorate General
Central Public Works Department
EC-IV (SC) Room No. 109 A Wing

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
Dated the 20 February.2024

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Grant of notional increment (as due on 1st Jan./ 1st July) to the officers/ employees superannuated on 31st Dec./ 30th June and revision of pensionary benefits.

The undersigned ts directed to invite the attention to the above-mentioned subject and to say that some retired CP WD officials through original application (OA) No.173/2021 (Arun Kumar Goyal & others) and 2244/2019 (Lal Chand Maurya & others) OA no. 2905/2023 (Sh. Surva Kant Rai. EE(Civil) & Others) approached the CAT for seeking the benefits of grant of notional increment. These retired officials had superannuated on 30th June and 31st December and their next date of increment was due on 01st of July and 01st of January following their respective date of superannuation. The applicants were aggrieved that their pension should have been fixed by counting the increment which was due immediately following their respective date of superannuation.

2. The Hon’ble CAT(PB) New Delhi pronounced its judgement in favour of the applicants vide order dated 15.07.2021 & 22.09.2023 respectively (copy enclosed). Department of Legal Affairs, M/o Law & Justice had advised to challenge the decision dated 15.07.2021 of CAT, PB. New Delhi in High Court of Delhi. Accordingly, a Writ Petition 2926/2022 was filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 04.02.2022 after obtaining the approval of the competent authority.

3. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi issued an Order on 26.07.2023 after hearing the above Writ Petition and stated that:-

“Since we have disposed of similar writ petitions arising from the same order, we dispose of this petition stating that the parties shall be bound by the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Director (Admn. & HR) KPTCL (supra) Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023{[SLP (C) No.6185/2020). Petition Stands disposed of”.

4, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023[ SLP (C) No.6185/2020, The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. Versus C.P. Mundinamani & Ors] had announced in its Judgement dated | 1/04/2023 that*

“The Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 1.A. No. 149091/2022 stands disposed of in terms of the above”.

5. Since the order dated 26.07.2023 of the Delhi High Court referred to the Judgement of Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023[SLP (C) No.6185/2020) and keeping in view the vast implications of the implementation of the judgement, it was decided to refer the matter to DoPT being the Nodal Department for seeking their comments/ advice through MoHUA tor furthers order in this case.

6. DoPT in its observation stated that “The matter has been examined in this Department. It is advised that in the instant case MoHUA may, in consultation with D/o Legal Affairs, take an administrative decision regarding compliance of the Order dated 26.07.2023 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi referred above.”

7. As per the advice of DoPT the matter was again referred to DOLA for its advice wherein DOLA advised as under:-

“Since the case at hand raises identical issue as that in the case of the KPTCL v. CP. Mundinamani, 2023 SCC Online SC 401 which has been decided in favour of the applicants by the Hon’ble Supreme court and has attained finality, it would not be a fit case for preferring an SLP against order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Dethi and it is further advised that the order be implemented at the earliest so that there is no contempt proceedings initiated against the department.“

8. Accordingly, the matter was sent for the approval of Mo HUA (being the competent authority) for implementing the CAT Judgement dated 15.07.2021 & 22.09.2023. The MoHUA has approved the implementation of judgement of CAT in respect of CPWD petitioners for granting of one notional increment to the petitioners vide efile No. 9110820 dated 09/02/2024.

9. Therefore, the concerned offices of CPWD where the CPWD petitioner were posted at the time of their retirement, are advised to implement the Judgement of the CAT in its order (for OA NO. 173/2021; OA No. 2244/2019 and OA No. 2905/2023) dated 15.07.2021 & 22.09.2023 for all those CPWD officials who were party in this matter(list attached), after verification of the records of the petitioners.

10. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority.

(Kamkhanmang Palte)
Deputy Director (Admin.)-III

Copy to: (Through CPWD website)

The post Grant of notional increment as due on 1st Jan/ 1st July to the officers/ employees superannuated on 31st Dec/ 30th June and revision of pensionary benefits 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.

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.

The grant of a notional increase on the day of retirement in accordance with the 6th/7th CPC and the current provision for granting an increase under the RSRP Rule shall be checked and assessed by the Directorate of the Pay Commission.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)

Office Order No. 35 of 2020

(Amendment No. 37 to July
2013 edition of the subject list)

Sub : Concerned Branch to deal with issues of Notional Increment on the day of superannuation.

The issue as to which Directorate will deal with the subject relating to grant of Notional Increment on the day of Superannuation, when the same was due on next day, exclusively for the purpose of fixation of pension was under consideration because of differences between concerned branch regarding processing of such cases

Also check: AIRF Letter to Finance Minister – Consider granting of DA & DR

2. It has now have been decided with the approval of the competent authority that all such case for grant of notional increment on the day of retirement which is at variance with 6th /7th CPC and existing provision for grant of increment under RSRP Rule be examined and handled by Pay Commission Directorate (PC-VI/PC-VII as the case may be). Post grant of notional increment the issue of Pension would be handled by F(E)-III unit. In case of any issue not related to 6th/7th CPC warranting grant of notional increment under FR rules would also be handled/coordinated by F(E) Directorate.

3. Henceforth all court cases / RTI reference/Railway reference/ representation etc., would accordingly be handled by PC and F(E) Directorate respectively.

Also read: DA to be released immediately according to Delhi High Court judgment. Court case on DA, and the petitioner won

4. Accordingly, the subject list of F(E)-III and PC-VI/ PC-VII stands amended.

E No. 2020/0&M/26/2
Dated:-11.05.2020

(B. Majumdar)
Joint Secretary /Railway Board

The post RAILWAYS – Issues of Notional Increment on the day of superannuation appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.11.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition No.28488 of 2013 M.P.No.1 of 2013 M. Murugan … Petitioner Vs. 1. The Co-operative Sub Registrar/Field Officer cum Surcharge Enquiry Officer, Madhanur, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District. Court under Para 14 has explained rem & persona judgements

January 25, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.11.2013

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANI KUMAR Writ Petition No. 28488 of 2013

M.P.No.1 of 2013 M.MuruganVs. The Co-operative Sub Registrar / Field Officer cum Surcharge Enquiry Officer, Madhanur, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District.

In the present writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that as he had not opposed or challenged the surcharge proceedings initiated by the then Co-operative Sub Registrar / Field Officer, Jolarpet, Mr.M.M.Subramanian, the judgment rendered in W.P.No.15758 of 2006, dated 22.06.2012, can be treated only as a “judgment in personam” and not as “judgment in rem”. In C.L. Pasupathy v. Engineer in Chief (WRO) reported in 2009 (2) MLJ 491, this Court has considered the expressions, “judgment in ‘in rem’ or a judgment ‘in personam’”, as follows: Read further under Para 14 in main judgement to understand Judgement in rem & Judgement in Persona .

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.11.2013

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

Writ Petition No.28488 of 2013 M.P.No.1 of 2013

M.Murugan … …………………………..Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Co-operative Sub Registrar/Field Officer cum Surcharge Enquiry Officer, Madhanur, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District.
2. The President, Chinnakallupalli Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank,
   Chinnakallupalli Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District.
3. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
   Tirupattur Circle, Tirupattur, Vellore District. ……… Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records, relating to the surcharge show cause notice, Tha Thi 2/2013-14 Sa.Pa. dated 25.09.2013 of the 1st respondent, issued under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act, 1983.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkataraman

For Respondents : Mr.L.P.Shanmughasundaram,
Spl. Govt. Pleader (Co-op.)

ORDER

Being aggrieved by the notice in the surcharge proceedings, made in Tha Thi 2/2013-14 Sa.Pa. Dated 25.09.2013, of the Co-operative Sub Registrar / Field Officer cum Surcharge Enquiry Officer, Madhanur, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District, 1st respondent herein, has issued under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), calling upon the petitioner, the erstwhile Sub-Registrar, Chinnakallupalli Primary Agricultural Co- operative Bank, Chinnakallupalli Village, Vaniyambdi Taluk, Vellore, to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of notice, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. According to the petitioner, he had worked as Sub-Registrar in the above said Bank, for the period between 26.07.2001 and 01.07.2003 and thereafter, between 25.11.2003 and 13.04.2004. An enquiry under Section 81 of the Act came to be ordered by the Deputy Registrar, Tirupattur Circle, on 25.01.2005 and pursuant to the report, dated 03.08.2005, a show cause notice, dated 18.04.2006, has been issued in the Surcharge Proceedings, by one Mr.M.M.Subramanian, the then Co-operative Sub Registrar / Field Officer, Jolarpet. The petitioners and others were alleged to have failed to carry out proper supervision, which enabled the Secretary of the Society to misappropriate Rs.1,02,980/-.

Also check: One notional increase for retired employees on 30 June after the completion of 1 year

3. The petitioner has further submitted that he was summoned to appear for an enquiry on 25.05.2006, by a memo, dated 18.05.2006, by the Enquiry Officer. On receipt of the same, the petitioner has sent a representation, seeking production of the supporting materials, to enable him to submit his explanation. He has appeared in the enquiry on 25.05.2006 and submitted a detailed representation, demanding documents.

4. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has issued a fresh summons, posting the enquiry on 31.01.2006. According to the petitioner, notice of enquiry was received by the petitioner on 31.05.2006 and hence, he could not attend the enquiry, on the fixed date. Therefore, he sent a representation on 01.06.2006 and sought for an alternative date of enquiry. Now, after nearly seven years, a fresh show cause notice, dated 25.09.2013, has been issued by the 1st respondent.

5. Assailing the correctness of the impugned notice, Mr.S.Venkataraman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged occurrence was between the period 2001 and 2004, when the petitioner was deputed to work as the Special Officer. According to him, a fresh surcharge proceedings has been initiated only on 25.09.2013, after a lapse of seven years and therefore, no action can be taken, as per the 1st proviso to Section 87 of the Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that citing the order of this Court made in W.P.No.15758 of 2006, dated 22.06.2012, surcharge proceedings are now reviewed. The above said writ petition, came to be allowed, setting aside the surcharge proceedings with liberty to hold a fresh enquiry, with a further condition that the petitioner therein, should not raise the plea of limitation.

According to him, the order made in the above writ petition, is not a “judgment in rem” and it should be read as “judgment in personam” and therefore, it can be applied only to the petitioner therein, and should not have been extended to the other delinquents.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not challenged the earlier proceedings, on the grounds, including bias or mala fide, raised by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.15758 of 2006 and that there was no order, preventing the enquiry officer to proceed against the petitioner and other delinquents. In the above said circumstances, 1st proviso to Section 87, is attracted and therefore, the present impugned proceedings have to be set aside. Excepting the above, no other points are urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader (Co- operatives) and perused the materials available on record.

8. Before adverting the facts of the case, Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, is extracted:

“87. Surcharge– (1) Where in the course of an audit under section 80 or an inquiry under section 81 or an inspection or investigation under section 82 or inspection of books under section 83 or the winding-up of a society, it appears that any person who is or was entrusted with the organisation or management of the society or any past or present officer or servant of the society has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property or been guilty of breach of trust in relation to the society or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or wilful negligence or has made any payment which is not in accordance with this Act, the rules or the by-laws the Registrar himself or any person specially authorised by him in this behalf, of his own motion or on the application of the board, liquidator or any creditor or contributory may frame charges against such person or officer or servant and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned and in the case of a deceased person, to his representative who inherits his estate, to answer the charges, make an order requiring him to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof with interest at any such rate as the Registrar or the person authorised as aforesaid thinks just or to contribute such sum to the assets of the society by way of compensation in respect of the misappropriation, misapplication of funds, fraudulent retainer, breach of trust or wilful negligence or payments which are not in accordance with this Act, the rules or the by-laws as the Registrar or the person authorised as aforesaid thinks just:

Provided that no action shall be commenced under this sub-section after the expiry of seven years from the date of any act or omission referred to in this sub-section.

Provided further that the action commenced under this sub-section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of such commencement or such further period or periods as the next higher authority may permit but such extended period or periods shall not exceed six months in the aggregate.”

9. Materials on record shows that Mr.M.M. Subramanian, the then Co-operative Sub Registrar / Field Officer, Jolarpet, has issued show cause notices, in Surcharge 12/2005-06 Sa.Pa., dated 18.04.2006, under Section 87 of the Act, to seven persons, including the petitioner, who was the then Sub-Registrar, Chinnakallupalli Primary Agricultural Co- operative Bank, Chinnakallupalli Village, Vaniyambdi Taluk, Vellore.

Also check: MACP FOR THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

10. Materials on record further discloses that after the receipt of notice, the petitioner seemed to have made representations, dated 20.05.2006 and 25.05.2006 respectively, seeking certain documents. In the said representations, he has also sought for copies of the enquiry report, under Section 81 of the Act and the other documents.

11. Perusal of the order made in W.P.No.15758 of 2006, dated 22.06.2012, shows that one of the co-delinquents, Mr.G.Srinivasan, a former Secretary of the Chinnakallupalli Primary Agricultural Co- operative Bank, Chinnakallupalli Village, Vaniyambdi Taluk, Vellore, had challenged the above show cause notice, issued in Surcharge 12/2005-06 Sa.Pa., dated 18.04.2006, under Section 87 of the Act, on the grounds, inter alia, that surcharge proceedings have been entrusted to a person, who had earlier functioned as a Special Officer of Chinnakallupalli Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank and requirements of fairness and justice, demand that the surcharge proceedings be conducted by a person, other than the said officer. Bias has been alleged on the then Enquiry Officer, under Section 87 of the Act. Considering the rival submissions, this Court, at Paragraphs 5 to 8, has passed the following orders,

Also check: Retirement guide for a central government employees

“5. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that though it cannot be stated as a general rule that the officer placed in-charge of the surcharge proceedings necessarily would be prejudiced against the petitioner because he happened to be the special officer during the alleged wrong doing of the petitioner, following the principle that justice should not only be done, but also should be seen to be done, this Court would allow this petition.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the proceedings 12/2005-06 Sa.Pa., dated 18.04.2006 stand quashed. No costs.

7. It is now open to the second respondent to appoint a fresh officer for the purpose of conducting surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. This Court clarifies that since the proceedings stand delayed owing to the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15758 of 2006, the petitioner now cannot raise any plea under first proviso to Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.

8. This Court directs the respondents to initiate surcharge proceedings afresh in keeping with this order and to complete the same as expeditiously as possible.”

12. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even assuming that action has been taken well within the period of limitation, continuation of the said action, so taken, can be only with the permission of the higher authorities and in such circumstances, the extended period or periods shall not exceed six months in the aggregate. According to him, initially, action has been taken in the year 2006 by issuance of a surcharge notice and thereafter,there was no progress. As the order made in W.P.No.15758 of 2006,dated 22.06.2012, filed by Mr.G. Srinivasan, is not applicable to the writ petitioner and in the absence of any permission from the higher authorities to continue with the surcharge proceedings, after six months,from the date of commencement, the impugned show cause, has to beset aside ….

Check this: Latest news for pensioners of central govt

25. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

The post Notional Increment on retirement 30th June DoPT – Madras High Court Order appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Government of Haryana
Finance Department

No.6/ 183/2018-4PR (FD),

From
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana Finance Department.

To

1. All of the Administrative Secretaries in Haryana Stale.
2. All of the Heads or Departments in Haryana State.
3. All or the Divisional Commissioners in Haryana State.
4. All of the Deputy Commissioners in Haryana State
5. All of the SDOs (Civil) in Haryana State.

Date Chandigarh the, 03.04.2019

Subject: Grant of Notional Increment on completion of 12 Months of Service on of July of a Calendar Year (After Retirement) for the purpose of Pension to Govt. employees. Dealing with the Pending/ Under Consideration Cases.

Sir,
have been directed to refer to the subject cited above and to state that the Hon’bIe Madras High Court vide its judgment dated 15.9.2017 in CWP No. 15732 of 2017-P. Ayyamperumal Vs. Union of India had allowed an Annual Increment on notional basis for the purpose Of pensionary benefits to the petitioner on I .7.2013 who had otherwise retired on 30.52013. The rationale of the judgment was that the Increment has to be granted On completion On full year or service and s:nce the employee concerned had retired on 30.69013 after the fun length of service of one year from 1 .7.2012 to 30.6.2013 he was allowed the Annual Increment as on 1.7.2013 on notional basis for the oi pensionary benefit*. This judgment was later on upheld in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 22283 of 2018- Union of India Vs. p. Ayyamperumal, decided on 23.7.2018.

A number of cases on the same lines are being received comprising administrative proposals, judgments from the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court delivered in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court ibid. Further, a number of CWPs, Representations from retired Employees and certain Legal Notices have also been received and have pouring in regularly relying upon the judgment Of Hon’ble Supreme Court ibid.

In view Of the above the matter was considered meticulously weighing all possible pros and cones and since the judgment or Hon’ble Supreme Court ibid has been delivered a case where Central Govt was party, the Central Govt. has, therefore, been requested vide this Department Ietter dated 28.3.9019 to apprise or the latest position in this respect to the Haryana Govt. so that appropriate policy decision may be taken accordingly. This request has been sent to Central Govt. since the remedy Of Review

Application and Curative Petition still subsists with it end it would be in the fitness of things that a decision by the Haryana Govt. may be taken Only after ascertainment of final decision from the Govt. of india. A copy of request dated 28.3.201′ sent to Central Govt. is attached herein.

In view of the above it is requested that all of the pending cases i.e. CWPs/Court Cases, Representations, Legal Notices on the instant subject may be dealt with/disposed of accordingly. In the decided cases where in a direction has been issued by the Hon’ble High Court/ I-d. Courts to decide the Representations/ Legal Notices of the petitioners LEC Petitioners/ Counsel of Petitioners may be informed accordingly. Likewise, adjournment may he requested in the cases Where Reply is to be fled. ‘The under consideration Representations/ Legal Notices may also be disposed Of in the same terms informing the factual position to the Employees (Counsels concerned. The next line of action be informed in due course.

sd/-
Chief Accounts Officer (PR)
for Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana
Finance Department

Endst . No. 6/ 183/2018-4PR(FD)

A copy is forwarded to the Accountant General Haryana, (A&E) and (Audit), Chandigarh for information.

Chief Accounts Officer (PR)
for Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana,
Finance Department
“CONSERVE WATER – SAVE LIFE”

Government of Haryana
Finance Department

No. 6/ 183/2018-4PR (FD)

To
The Secretary to the Govt. of India
Ministry of personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions
Department of Pension
New Delhi

Date 28th March, 2018

Subject:- Grant of Notional Increment on completion of 12 Months of Service on July of Calendar year (After Retirement) for the purpose of pension to Govt. employees.

Respected Sir,
I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to state that The Haryana Govt. has broadly followed the pattern Oi Central Govt. in Pay and Pension Structure while its Pay pension Rules pursuant. To recommendations of Central Pay Commissions. the Pay Rule of 2006 there was a uniform date or grant or Annual Increment being of July of eve-or calendar month Whereas in the 2015 Rules there are two dazes being Of January and of July depending upon the circumstances. The minimum length of service Lo earn the Annual Increment is uniform In of the Rules i.e. six months of qualifying service.

Some of the retired Officers/ Employees brought to the notice of this Department a judgment dated 25-9.2017 (Copy Attached) of DB Of Hon’ble Madras High Court delivered in CWP No. 15732 of 2017- P. Ayyamperumal Vs. Union India wherein the Hon tile Madras High Court has allowed the benefit of Annual increment, on notional basis to the petitioner who retired on 30.6.2013 for Pensionary benefits only for the period of I. 7.2012 to 30-62013 though the Increment [ell due on The Operative part of the judgment ibid is reproduced herein below for your ready reference;-
The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.6.2013, but the increment feu due on 1.7.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one year of service though the date of increment fans on the next day of his Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition Es allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.3.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 7.7.2012to 30.6.2013, as he has completed one fun year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No Costs.

This judgment was later on upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India vide its judgment dated 23.7.2018 (Copy Attached) in SLP NO. 22283 Of 2018 and the inference comes out is that this issue has attained finality until and unless it has been challenged further by the Govt. of India by means Review Application/ Curative Petition, if any.

In view of the legal position as above, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has disposed of number of cases is The same terms against the State of Haryana wherein the retired employees of the Haryana Govt. had demanded similar benefit being affinity Of Rules. Besides, a. number of CWPs/Court Cases are also sub judice in the Hon’ble High Court and the Haryana Govt is not able to file proper reply therein in view of the judgment Of Hon’ble Supreme Court ibid. Further, number Of Legal Notices arc also pending and lot more arc also In on regular intervals from the relired employees demanding same benefits and a warning of filing of Court Case in the cage Of denial thereof is also being conveyed
As such: it is kindly requested that the factual position may Se clarified conspicuously as per points mentioned below;

1.As to whether the Govt. of India has further challenged the Aforesaid judgment in SLP by way of RA/Curative Petition and if yes the detail thereof may please be conveyed.
2.If the action to challenge has not been materialized then as to whether it is under consideration.
3.As to whether the same has been implemented and if yes, the copy of relevant Rule/ Instruction/ Order may please be provided
4.It may please be clarified, in case this judgment has been implemented as to whether the Increment is countable for Pension purpose exclusively or for other retiral benefit i.e. Communication of Pension, DQÜ and Leave Encashment etc.

5.Though the judgment ibid has been delivered keeping in view the Pay Rules 2006 wherein only single date of Annual Increment i.e. 1st July of every calendar year was provided whereas With the commencement or 2016 Rules [here have been provided two dates of Increments i.e. 1st of January and 1st July. It may, therefore, please he clarified RS to whether it would also apply to Govt. employees retiring after 01.01-2016.

6.As to whether the Govt- of India has accordingly amended or contemplating to amend its Pay and Pension Rules (please clarify conspicuously) to make them compatibIe in view of the factual position as such.

The aforesaid information/ documents may please be provided at the earliest so that the Haryana Govt. may take appropriate decision in all the pending cases accordingly and no awkward position is faced in the Hon’ble High Court/other Ld. Courts.

If this issue does not relate to this Department/ Division then this communication may please refereed transferred to the Department/ Division concerned under intimation to this Department so as to enable it to follow-up the same accordingly With the authority concerned.

Thanking You

DA/ As above

Yours Faithfully,
Chief Accounts Officer
for Additional Chief Secretary to Govt_ Haryana
Finance Department
(Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh)

The post Grant of Notional Increment on completion of 12 Months of Service on of July of a Calendar Year (After Retirement) for the purpose of Pension to Government employees appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Subject : Notional fixation of pay to officers included in USSL 2009 and 2010 reg.

The undersigned is directed to refer to references received from Ministries/ Departments forwarding therewith requests of officers included in USSLs 2009 & 2010 for notional fixation of pay in the grade of Under Secretary from 1 July of the Select List year. The issue has been examined in this Department.

2. It is informed that as per DPC guidelines promotions are effective from a prospective date. Grant of notional fixation of pay from a date prior to the date of actual promotion is not as per the general instructions on promotion. The pay and allowances attached to a post is admissible only w.e.f. the date of appointment to the post and for actual pay benefit, assumption of charge of the promotional post is the criterion.

3. It was decided by this Department that notional fixation of pay would not be allowed to any grade/ service on the ground of delayed holding of DPC. Accordingly, in the Office Memorandum of even number dated 26.11.2012 issued by this Department for inclusion of officers in USSL-2009 & 2010 no instructions were issued for notional fixation of pay.

4. Accordingly, notional fixation of pay in respect of officers included in USSL-2009 and 2010, w.e.f. 1 July of the Select List year is not consistent with extant rules/instructions on the subject and is not, therefore, allowed. All the Ministries/Departments are, therefore, requested to review the cases of fixation of pay of officers included in USSLs 2009 & 2010 and take steps to rectify the pay fixation in all those cases where the benefit of notional fixation of pay has incorrectly extended.

Source: www.persmin.nic.in
[http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02csd/NotionalPay_Fixation_US200910.pdf]

The post Notional fixation of pay to officers included in USSL 2009 and 2010 reg. appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Subject: – Issue of consideration of Stagnation Increment for the purpose of notional increment at the time of promotion.

The undersigned is directed to enclose BHEL. letter No. AA/HR/IR/520 dated 14.6.2012 on the subject mentioned above.

2. On promotion, the executive would be entitled to the benefit of one notional increment (3%) on his Basic Pay + Stagnation Increment, if any, and the pay would be fixed (rounded off to the next Rs.10), in the promoted scale. However, on promotion the pay so fixed should not exceed the maximum of the scale to which the executive  is promoted. In case his pay so arrived at is less than the minimum of the promoted
scale, he/she would be entitled to get the minimum of the scale. Further, DPE has recently issued detailed O.M. dated 14.12.2012 on various pay related issues of executives of CPSEs. A copy of O.M. dated 14.12.2012 is available on DPE website www.dep.nic.in

3. DHI being the administrative Ministry in respect of BHEL may suitably clarify to BHEL.

End. As above

DHI
(Shri S.K.Mishra, Under Secretary)
Udyog Bhawan,
New Delhi

Source : www.dpe.nic.in
[http://dpe.nic.in/sites/upload_files/dpe/files/glch04d24_08012013.pdf]

The post Issue of consideration of Stagnation Increment for the purpose of notional increment at the time of promotion appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.