Grant of annual increment falling due on the next day of superannuation/ retirement, for the purpose of pensionary benefits

Annual increment next day of superannuation

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)

Click to download the Court Case

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

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

Retired on 30th June is eligible for Increment annual interest rate of 6%

Retired on 30th June is eligible for Increment Benefit with an annual interest rate of 6 per cent - Madhya Pradesh High Court Order - Notional Increment on retirement

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

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

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

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.

Increment Issue: for those retired on 30th June, due increment is 1st July. Supreme Court of India dismissed Review petition No.1731/2019

Increment Issue: for those retired on 30th June, due increment is 1st July. Supreme Court of India dismissed Review petition No.1731/2019

Text of the Supreme court judgement follows:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

R.P.(C) No. 1731/2019 in S.L.P. (C) No.22008/2018

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
P. AYYAMPERUMAL
Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned.

This review petition has been filed against Order dated 23rd July, 2018 whereby the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

We have considered the review petition on merits. In our opinion, no case for review of Order dated 23rd July, 2018 is made out. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed on merits.

Pending application filed in the matter also stands disposed of.

(N.V. RAMANA)

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

NEW DELHI;

8TH AUGUST, 2019.

Digitally signed by

VISHAL ANAND

Date: 2019.08.09

16:55:01 IST

ITEM NO.1004

SECTION XII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

R.P.(C) No. 1731/2019 in SLP(C) No. 22008/2018

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS

P. AYYAMPERUMAL

Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.98411/2019-STAY APPLICATION and IA No.98414/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW PETITION )

Date : 08082019 This petition was circulated today.

CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

By Circulation
UPON perusing papers the Court made the following

O R D E R

Delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned.

The review petition is dismissed on merits in terms of the signed order.
Pending application filed in the matter also stands disposed of.

(VISHAL ANAND)

COURT MASTER (SH)

(RAJ RANI NEGI)

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed Order is placed on the file)

Message by JVSR Krishna – 9441903448 (jvsrkrishna@gmail.com)

Flash….Flash….Flash…..Flash,

Increment Issue: for those retired on 30th June, due increment is 1st July. Supreme Court of India dismissed Review petition No.1731/2019 judgement dt.8th Aug. 2019 filed by the Government, indicated based on the merit, review petition submitted by Government was dismissed. Now, the national forums responsibility is to insist the government to implement the same to all the central government servants who are similarly placed, instead of everybody approaching the court of law for justice and it is shear waste of money and time.

Source: SUPREME COURT ORDER