Ramavarapu Venkata Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

2. GP FOR ENERGY (AP) The Court made the following order: 4 VS,J WP_35787_2018 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…. to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent/Divisional Electric Engineer in issuing proceedings Lr.No.SE/ O /RJY/ SAO/AO – Expenditure / JAO/ PRS/SA-/ D.No.64, Lr.No.DEE / O/ RCP/ JAO/ ADM /JA.2/D.No.597/18 and Lr.No.DEE/ O/ RCP/ JAO/ ADM/ JA.2/ D.No.596/2018 dt.25.05.2018 in not fixing the pensionary benefits in terms of revised pay scales ordered in T.O.O. (CGM-HRD&TRG) M.S.No.14 dt.15.04.2010 to the petitioners is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, contrary to the various decisions held by the Honourable Courts and consequently direct the respondent authorities to revise and refix the pensionary benefits with effect from 01.04.2010 in terms of revised pay scales ordered in T.O.O. (CGM-HRD & TRG) M.S.No.14 dt.15.04.2010 to the petitioners along with arrears w.e.f. 01.04.2010 and regulate the same from time to time and pass.….” 2) The case of the petitioners is that after rendering sufficient service, petitioners got retired on 31.03.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation in different cadres. The pension of all the three petitioners was fixed by the respective pension fixation officer i.e. respondent No.5 as per the AP Revised Pension Rules of 1980 and drawing pension from their respective offices. 3) The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 100 Finance (Pension-1) Dept., dated 06.04.2010 basing on recommendations of 9th Pay Revision Commission. It is specifically stated in the said Government order that “in the case of employees 5 VS,J WP_35787_2018 who retired on or after 01.02.2010 the pension shall be calculated on the pay in Revised Pay Scales 2010 only”. The APTRANSCO has adopted the said G.O.Ms. No. 100 in its T.O.O. (Addl. Secy-per) MS. No.54 dated 07.05.2010. Pursuant to that, the APEPDCL by its Order vide E.O.O. (HRD) Ms. No.137 dated 25.05.2010 also has adopted Orders issued in T.O.O. (Addl. Secy-per) MS. No. 54 dated

07.05.2010 of AP Transco. 4) It is further case of the petitioners that New Revision of pay scales were ordered to be implemented w.e.f. 01.04.2010, i.e. the next day of the retirement of the petitioners herein as per T.O.O. [CGM-HRD&TRG] M.S.No.14 dated 15.04.2010 to the workmen of the organization. However fixation of pensionary benefits of the petitioners were not settled in terms of the said T.O.O. [CGM- HRD&TRG] M.S.No.14 dated 15.04.2010. 5) It is further stated that petitioner No.1 has submitted a representation respondent No.4 herein requesting pensionary benefits in the new revised pay scales effective from

01.04.2010. As there is no response, petitioner No.1 sent a representation by registered post to the CMD on 28.09.2016 requesting for fixation of pension in the new revised pay scales effective from 01.04.2010 referring to the decisions reported in “Principal Accountant General, A.P., Hyderabad Vs. C.Subba Rao1” and “S.Banerjee Vs. Union of India2”. In response to the said representation of petitioner No.1 to CMD, it was endorsed to respondent No.5 - SE Operations, Rajamahendravaram vide memo HRD/MPS/P&L/ F.NO.116933/16 D No.58822/16 Dated 16.11.2016 1 2005 (5) ALT 25 (F.B.) 2 AIR 1990 SC 285 6 VS,J WP_35787_2018 by the Chief General Manager [HRD]. However there is no response. Thereafter, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have also submitted representations on 15.04.2011, 20.01.2015 and 25.10.2016 respectively praying for fixation of pension in revised pay scales w.e.f. 01-04-2010. Even though, the representations of petitioners were received by the respondent authorities, no action was taken to fix pension of the petitioners in revised pay scales w.e.f. 01-04-2010. At that stage, the petitioners filed a writ petition W.P.No.7727 of 2018 before this Court, after hearing the parties, this Court vide its order dated 02.04.2018 was pleased to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations of the petitioners and take action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order, in accordance with law. 6) Thereafter, petitioner No.1 submitted a fresh representation dated 18.04.2018 to respondent No.5 - Superintending Engineer along with copy of Order passed in W.P.No.7727 of 2018 dated

02.04.2018. Similarly, petitioner No.2 and 3 also submitted their respective representations dated 22.04.2018 to respondent No.5 along with the copy of the order passed in W.P. No.7727 of 2018 dated. 02.04.2018. 7) It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent No.4 - Divisional Electrical Engineer issued proceedings Lr.No. SE/O/RJY/SAO/AO-Expenditure/JAO/PRS/SA-3/D.No. 64 dated 25.05.2018 to petitioner No.1, Lr.No. DEE/O/ RCP/JAO/ ADM/JA.2/D.No.597/18 dated. 25-05-2018 to petitioner No.2 Lr.No.DEE/O/RCP/JAO/ADM/JA.2/D.No.596/2018 7 VS,J WP_35787_2018

25.05.2018 to petitioner No.3 informing that, "the pay was fixed in accordance with law as a pensioner and there is no provision to revise the pay in Revised Pay Scales 2010 as petitioners were already retired from service on 31.03.2010 and that the Court orders are implemented in its entirety effected". 8) It is further stated that respondent No.4/Divisional Electrical Engineer while issuing the proceedings dated 25.05.2018 did not consider the contentions of the petitioners, even though the petitioners specifically relied on the decision passed W.P.No.16613 of 2006 wherein revised pensionary benefits were granted in the next revised pay scales of 2006 and the same principle is applicable to the petitioners. Government servant retiring on last day of the preceding month is deemed to have become pensioner on the next day and therefore such pensioners are also entitled for the benefit of enhanced pensionary benefits. The respondents have extended the pensionary benefits to one Sri N. Balaraju who was retired as AAO of APTRANSCO fixing his pensionary benefits in the next revised pay scales of 2006 based on the orders passed by this Hon'ble court in W.P.No.16613 of 2006 (CC No.48 of 2015). 9) It is submitted that, in the case of State Of U.P.& Ors vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors. on 17 October, 2014 in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9849 OF 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) NO. 18639 OF 2012) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of 8 VS,J WP_35787_2018 Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. Hence the petitioners are also entitled to the benefits extended to the above said N. BalaRaju. The action of the respondent authorities in not granting benefits to the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional. Hence, the writ petition. 10) Respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit contending G.O.Ms.No.100 Finance (Pension-1)Department dated 06.04.2010 of Government of Andhra Pradesh pertains to Revised Pay Scales of 2008 w.e.f. 01.07.2008 with monetary benefit from 01.02.2010 and addition of 5 Years Service to the qualifying service even in case of retirement on attaining age of Superannuation as against 3 Years duly amending the Rule 29 of AP State Revised Pension Rule and revision of commutation table for calculating commuted value of Pension, wherein it is stated that the G.O. is applicable only to those employees of State Government of A.P. who were retired in between

01.07.2008 to 01.02.2010 the revision of pension will be applicable with monetary benefit from 01.02.2010 and the said G.O. was not applicable to APTRANSCO/APEPDCL as said organization is a state owned autonomous public sector undertaking and the Revision of Pay scales is different from Government of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pay scales and there is no similarity in between the revision of pay scales. The TOO (Addl. Secy-Per) MS.No.54 dated 9 VS,J WP_35787_2018

07.05.2010 was issued duly adopting G.O.Ms.No. 100 Finance (Pension-I) Department dated 06.04.2010 as the Pension settlement being made duly following the AP Revised pension Rules, in obedience to that the enhancement of Service Weightages from 3 Years to 5 Years and the revision of Commutation Value being adopted by APTRANSCO and the necessary TOO has been issued to implement the same in APEPDCL also. 11) It is further contended that the Revised Pay scales 2010 of APTRANSCO/APEPDCL is applicable for employees who are on rolls w.e.f 01.04.2010 with prospective effect only but not with retrospective effect. The revision of pay scales will not be applicable to the petitioners as they were already retired from service on

31.03.2010 and they will not be treated as employees on rolls of APEPDCL as on 01.04.2010 and the said revision is not applicable as they completed their service as Employees by the midnight of

31.03.2010. Further the Revised Pay Scales 2010 of APTRANSCO/APEPDCL has been implemented and consequent on adoption of G.O.Ms.No. 100 Finance (Pension-I) Department dated

06.04.2010 by APTRANSCO and by virtue of TOO (Addl. Secy- Pesr) MS.No.54 Dt.07.05.2010, through which the respondents have revised the Superannuation Pension duly allowing addition to actual qualifying service of 5 Years instead of 3 Years and the basic Pension was fixed w.e.f. 01.04.2010 i.e. the next day of Superannuation of the petitioners herein. Further the Revised pay scales 2010, Revised Pay Scales 2014 and Revised Pay Scale 2018 of APTRANSCO/APEPDCL were revised from time to time and amount payable by APEPDCL until today along with new Dearness Relief (DR) released from time to time. 10 VS,J WP_35787_2018 12) It is further contended that Revision of Pay Scales-2010 will not be applicable as per the Provisions of T.O.O.(CGM-HRD &Trg) Ms.No.14 Dated: 15.04.2010 and EOO (HRD) Ms.No.87 dated

16.04.2010 but the revised Consolidated Pension shall come into force with effect from 01.04.2010 as per the Orders of AP TRANSCO/ APEPDCL T.O.O.(CGM-HRD&Trg) Ms.No.26 dated

21.04.2010. There is no provision to revise the pay in Revised Pay Scales-2010 as employees as the petitioners were already retired from service on the afternoon of 31.03.2010 and that the orders of this Court in W.P.No.7727 of 2018 are implemented in its entirety. 13) It is further contended that the respondents’ organization is state owned autonomous public sector undertaking and the Revision of Pay scales is different with that of the Government of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pay Scales and there is no similarity in between the revision of Pay Scales. It is further submitted that said petitioners retired on 31.03.2010 and the revision of Pension as per Revised Pay Scales-2010 has effected w.e.f.01.04.2010 and there is no discrimination of denying fixation benefits of Revised Pay Scales- 2010 as the Petitioners are alleging is not true in view of the instructions of T.O.O.(CGM- HRD&Trg) Ms.No. 14 Dated:

15.04.2010 for existing employees as on 01.04.2010 and the TOO (CGM-HRD&Trg) Ms.No.26 Dt.21.04.2010 is intended only for Pensioners. 14) It is further contended that the petitioners are well aware about the implementation of Revised Pay Scales in APEPDCL, since they have already drawn revised pay scales by exercising option only. After retirement, there is no right to choose option for revision of pay. 11 VS,J WP_35787_2018 Hence, the petitioners have no right to claim the revised pay scales. It is further submitted that, the APEPDCL never neglected the welfare of the pensioners. The pension of the pensioners/family pensioners was also revised from time to time. The Revised Pay Scales orders is applicable the working employees of APTRANSCO/APEPDCL with effect from 1" April, and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 15) When the present writ petition came up for hearing on

08.05.2024, this Court while allowing the writ petition, relied on paragraph No.55 of the judgment of the Full Bench in “Principal Accountant General, A.P., Hyderabad Vs. C.Subba Rao” (referred supra), which is as follows:

55. This question would arise only in Writ Petition No. 22042 of 2003 as the respondent therein also claimed DA instalments at 49%. As held by us supra, a Government servant who would be retiring on the last day of the month would cease to be Government servant by midnight of that day and he would acquire status of pensioner and therefore he would be entitled for all the benefits given to a pensioner with effect from first day of the succeeding month. In Banerjee case (supra), the Supreme Court laid down that as soon as first day of the succeeding month commenced, petitioner retired and gave the benefit of enhanced DA. The same view has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions as well. To that extent, it must be held that the learned Tribunal has taken correct view. 16) Further, this Court held that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5182 of 2001 dated 02.09.2008 considered the case of the petitioners in similar circumstances, wherein, the petitioner retired from service on 31.01.1999. The revised pensionary benefits and gratuity which came into force from 01.04.1999, petitioner claim was rejected. Petitioner carried the matter in writ petition, wherein, 12 VS,J WP_35787_2018 the Court held that the rejection cannot be sustained and the petitioner is entitled for the benefits which were given from

01.04.1999, though he retired on 31.01.1999. 17) Further, this Court held that in Writ Petition No.16613 of 2006, a Coordinate Bench of this Court considered the case of Assistant Accounts Officer who retired in the respondent’s corporation with effect from 31.03.2006 at Eluru, whereas, A.P.Transo Revised Pay Scales, 2006 came into effect from 01.04.2006. As the respondent’s corporation denied the Revised Pay Scales to him, he approached the Court. This Court allowed the petition vide orders dated

29.07.2011. Respondent’s corporation preferred Writ Appeal No.552 of 2013 against the said order, which was dismissed. Having observed so, this Court allowed the present writ petition. The operative portion is as follows: “In that view, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the Respondents to revise and refix the pensionary benefits with effect from 01.04.2010 in terms of revised pay scales ordered vide T.O.O.[CGM-HRD&TRG] M.S.No.14 dt.15.04.2010 to the petitioners along with arrears.” 18) Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred Civil Appeal No (s).__ of 2026 @ SLP (C) No.27521 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.05.2026 observed that learned counsel for the respondents herein argued that the relevant portion of the Full Bench judgment “Principal Accountant General, A.P., Hyderabad Vs. C.Subba Rao” (referred supra), as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case actually in paragraph Nos.51 and 53, they are as follows: 13 VS,J WP_35787_2018 “51. Applying the same principle, so as to get increment falling due on the first of the succeeding month, an employee must satisfy not only the condition of becoming entitled, but also the other conditions, namely, he should continue to be on duty as a Government servant paid from consolidated fund of India, and such increment should have been taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of his salary for the month during which such person retires. When an increment is given in recognition of past one year service, the benefit of such increment will not accrue in the past or in present time but the benefit would accrue only from a point of time in future. When an employee retires on the last working day of the month he ceases to be such Government servant and thus he would not get any benefit of such increment. Hence, no increment need be granted to such retired employee.

53. Therefore, in the matter of accrual of increment by an employee after last working day of such an employee and the employee who still continues to be a Government employee are altogether different and an employee who retires cannot claim increment that would accrue on a date after retirement. Even though an increment is sanctioned after the completion of one year of service because the grant of increment is by way of incentive for the employee to work in future with same efficiency. In the case of retired employee, that eventuality would not arise.” 19) Further, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the respondents herein also relied on “The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Ors3”, and as the learned counsel for the petitioners herein also relied on the same judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court remanded the matter to this Court by observing as under: “…….. we allow the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.27521 of 2024, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court in Writ Petition 3 (2023) 14 SCC 411 14 VS,J WP_35787_2018 No.35787 of 2018 dated 08.05.2024 and restore the writ petition to its original number. The High Court will now take up the writ petition and hear learned counsels for the petitioners and the respondents and dispose of the writ petition in accordance with law. In view of the fact that the writ petition relates to a claim for retiral benefits, the High Court may dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today.” 20) When the matter is listed for hearing before this Court, Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that APTRANSCO issued T.O.O. (CGM-HRD&Trg) Ms.No.14 dated 15.04.2010 for revision of pay of workmen with effect from 01.04.2010; as the petitioners are retired on 31.03.2010, their pension has to be fixed in the revised pay scales as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Ors” and “S.Banerjee Vs. Union of India” (referred supra), and requested to allow the writ petition. 21) Sri V.V.Satish, learned standing counsel for APEPDCL, contended that revised pay scales ordered in T.O.O. (CGM- HRD&Trg) Ms.No.14 dated 15.04.2010 is only applicable to the employees who are working on roles as on 01.04.2010 and that as the petitioners retired from service on 31.03.2010, their pension was fixed in terms of T.O.O. (CGM-HRD & Trg) Ms.No.26 dated

21.04.2010 and there is no provision to revise the pay in revised pay scales – 2010 for the employees retired on the afternoon of

31.03.2010, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 15 VS,J WP_35787_2018 22) Considering rival contentions and perusing the material on record, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the petitioners, who retired on 31.03.2010, are entitled for pay revision which was granted to the working employees with effect from 01.04.2010 ?” P O I N T: 23) On perusal of the earlier order passed by this Court on

08.05.2024, it can be observed that this Court relied on paragraph No.55 of the Full Bench judgment in “Principal Accountant General, A.P., Hyderabad Vs. C.Subba Rao” (referred supra). At the cost of repetition, the same is reproduced hereunder.

55. This question would arise only in Writ Petition No. 22042 of 2003 as the respondent therein also claimed DA instalments at 49%. As held by us supra, a Government servant who would be retiring on the last day of the month would cease to be Government servant by midnight of that day and he would acquire status of pensioner and therefore he would be entitled for all the benefits given to a pensioner with effect from first day of the succeeding month. In Banerjee case (supra), the Supreme Court laid down that as soon as first day of the succeeding month commenced, petitioner retired and gave the benefit of enhanced DA. The same view has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions as well. To that extent, it must be held that the learned Tribunal has taken correct view. 24) As per the observations made by the Full Bench judgment in paragraph No.55 “Principal Accountant General, A.P., Hyderabad Vs. C.Subba Rao” (referred supra) a Government servant who would be retiring on the last day of the month would cease to be Government servant by midnight of that day and he would acquire status of pensioner and therefore he would be entitled 16 VS,J WP_35787_2018 for all the benefits given to a pensioner with effect from first day of the succeeding month. In the said paragraph No.55, the Full Bench of this Court referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “S.Banerjee Vs. Union of India” (referred supra). 25) In “S.Banerjee Vs. Union of India”, the petitioner therein was permitted to retire voluntarily from the service on 01.01.1986 and the Paragraph 17.3 of Chapter 17 of Part II at page 93 of the Report of the Pay Commission provides as follows:

17.3 In the case of employees retiring during the period January 1, 1986 to September 30, 1986, government may consider treating the entire dearness allowance drawn by them up to December 31, 1985 as pay for pensionary benefits. 26) Taking into consideration of the said clause, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that as the petitioner therein had retired on January 1, 1986 and as he was on duty on January 1, 1986, he comes within the purview of paragraph 17.3 of the recommendations of the pay Commission and directed the respondents therein to calculate the pension in accordance with the recommendation of the pay commission as contained in paragraph No.17.3. 27) The said decision is not applicable to the present facts of the case as the petitioners herein have retired on 31.03.2010 and the respondents issued Orders for revised pay scales with effect from

01.04.2010. 28) However, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the respondents herein has contended that this Court instead of referring to paragraph Nos.51 and 53, has referred to paragraph No.55 of the Full Bench judgment in “Principal Accountant 17 VS,J WP_35787_2018 General, A.P., Hyderabad Vs. C.Subba Rao” (referred supra). At the cost of repetition, they are reproduced hereunder. “51. Applying the same principle, so as to get increment falling due on the first of the succeeding month, an employee must satisfy not only the condition of becoming entitled, but also the other conditions, namely, he should continue to be on duty as a Government servant paid from consolidated fund of India, and such increment should have been taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of his salary for the month during which such person retires. When an increment is given in recognition of past one year service, the benefit of such increment will not accrue in the past or in present time but the benefit would accrue only from a point of time in future. When an employee retires on the last working day of the month he ceases to be such Government servant and thus he would not get any benefit of such increment. Hence, no increment need be granted to such retired employee.

53. Therefore, in the matter of accrual of increment by an employee after last working day of such an employee and the employee who still continues to be a Government employee are altogether different and an employee who retires cannot claim increment that would accrue on a date after retirement. Even though an increment is sanctioned after the completion of one year of service because the grant of increment is by way of incentive for the employee to work in future with same efficiency. In the case of retired employee, that eventuality would not arise.” 29) On perusal of the said paragraph Nos.51 and 53, it can be observed that in the matter of accrual of increment by an employee after last working day of such an employee and the employee who still continues to be a Government employee are altogether different and an employee who retires cannot claim increment that would accrue on a date after retirement. On perusal of the said paragraph Nos.51 and 53, this Court is of the opinion that those two paragraphs 18 VS,J WP_35787_2018 are not applicable to the present case as the petitioners herein having retired on 31.03.2010 sought to grant pay revision, which was granted with effect from 01.04.2010 to the working employees, but not for increments. 30) However, the said judgment was overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Ors” (referred supra). Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the said judgment in support of his contentions, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (one year) with good conduct efficiently. Merely because, the government servant has retired on the very next day, how can he be denied the annual increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to for rendering the service with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding one year.” 31) In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, when an employee retires on the last working day of the month and if the increment is due on the first of the succeeding month, he cannot be denied such increment as the same is earned by him for rendering service with good conduct in a 19 VS,J WP_35787_2018 year/specified period. Further, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with good conduct. 32) The law laid down in the said judgment is not in dispute. However, the same is not applicable to the present facts of the case as the petitioners have not disputed the grant of increments. Petitioner No.1 was granted annual increment on 01.12.2009, likewise petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were granted annual increments on

01.11.2009 and 01.01.2010 respectively and they were retired on

31.03.2010. 33) Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners are retired on

31.03.2010. However, APTRANSCO issued T.O.O.(CGM-HRD&Trg) Ms.No.14 dated 15.04.2010 granting pay revision with effect from

01.04.2010, the relevant paragraph of the said T.O.O.(CGM- HRD&Trg) Ms.No.14 dated 15.04.2010 is as follows: “The APTRANSCO after careful consideration directs that scales of pay of the employees coming under the categories of Workmen shall be revised with effect from 1.4.2010 as indicated in the Annexure to this T.O.O.” 34) The petitioners contended that the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with good conduct. Therefore, he is 20 VS,J WP_35787_2018 entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (one year) with good conduct efficiently. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the same proposition as in the case of annual increments will be applicable even for pay revision also and the petitioners, who worked for considerable period in the past, are entitled for pay revision, though they retired a day prior to the applicable date for the pay revision. 35) At this stage, it is apropos to discuss the concept of increment and pay revision. 36) For government employees, an increment is a routine, periodic (usually annual) percentage or fixed rise added to an employee's basic pay based on service time. A pay revision is a major, comprehensive restructuring of the entire pay scale, matrices, and allowances across all government posts, usually enacted every 5 to 10 years through Pay Commission. Here, I would like to describe the scope and purpose of “annual increment” and “pay revision” Annual increment Pay revision Definition: Definition: A routine, predictable yearly rise A major structural overhaul of the added to an employee's basic entire salary, pay scales, and pay. fitment factors across government ranks. 21 VS,J WP_35787_2018 Frequency: Frequency: On rendering unblemished Occurs rarely, typically service of one year, employee implemented through a new Pay earns the increment due to him. Commission every 5 years in respect of State Government employees and 10 years respect of Central Government employees. 37) This Court is of the opinion that annual increment and pay revision are not same for government employees and they represent two completely different mechanisms of salary growth operating on separate timelines and rules. Usually, authorities would grant increments on successful completion of one year service; and State would grant Pay Revision in regular periodical intervals to meet the hike in prices due to inflation. In the present case, the authorities issued orders for revision of pay for workmen with effect from

01.04.2010. 38) It appears from the record, as the petitioners are retired on

31.03.2010 the respondents have correctly considered the last working day of the petitioners i.e. 31.03.2010 as retirement day and granted all the benefits which are prevailing as on that date. Further, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefits granted from 01.04.2010 as they ceased to be employees from the midnight of 31.03.2010. 39) Generally, a State Government fixes implementation date/cut- off date for a pay revision through a formal policy decision based on 22 VS,J WP_35787_2018 administrative feasibility, financial capacity and also by balancing the formal expiration date of the previous pay commission. 40) As per the material on record, APTRANSCO issued T.O.O.(CGM-HRD&Trg) Ms.No.14 dated 15.04.2010, fixing the cut-off date for implementation of revised pay scales as 01.04.2010 for working employees. Likewise, APTRANSCO also issued T.O.O.(CGM-HRD&Trg) Ms.No.26 dated 21.04.2010 sanctioning consolidated pension and dearness relief to Pensioners who retired/died while in service before 01.04.2010. Admittedly, the petitioners retired on 31.03.2010. Therefore, as the petitioners retired on 31.03.2010, they would cease to be Government servant by the mid-night of that day and they would acquire status of pensioner as held by the Full Bench of this Court in “Principal Accountant General, A.P., Hyderabad Vs. C.Subba Rao” (referred supra) and therefore, they would be entitled for all the benefits given to a pensioner with effect from first day of the succeeding month i.e.

01.04.2010. 41) Pension and salary connote two different things. In given situations, they may be payable under different statutes. The financial implication is one of the relevant considerations for the State to deny certain benefits to a class of employees who retire on or before a particular date. 42) In “State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and Ors.4”, relied on by the learned standing counsel for respondents, upon consideration of a large number of decisions, Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the decision of a State to limit the benefits only to 4 (2005) 6 SCC 754 23 VS,J WP_35787_2018 employees who retire or died on or after a particular date upon calculating the financial implications thereof was neither irrational nor arbitrary. It was observed: "….... It is trite that, the final recommendations of the Pay Commission were not ipso facto binding on the Government, as the Government had to accept and implement the recommendations of the Pay Commission consistent with its financial position. This is precisely what the Government did. Such an action on the part of the Government can neither be characterised as irrational, nor as arbitrary so as to infringe Article 14 of the Constitution." 43) In the present case, the petitioners, even though they retired on 31.03.2010, they are seeking the revised pension in the revised pay scales, which are granted to the workmen who are on rolls as on

01.04.2010 on the ground that they have retired just one day prior to the implementation date. State, after considering its financial viability and so many other factors, granted revised pay scales with effect from 01.04.2010, such action of the State in fixing the said date can neither be characterised as irrational, nor as arbitrary 44) In “State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Boota Singh and Anr.5”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the two separate notifications relating to two categories of persons, held as follows: "7. On merits we find that the retirement benefits which are claimed by the respondent are benefits which are conferred by subsequent orders/ notifications. Therefore, persons who retired after the coming into force of these notifications and order are governed by different rules of retirement than those 5 (2000) 3 SCC 733 24 VS,J WP_35787_2018 who retired under the old rules and were governed by the old rules. The two categories of persons, who retired were governed by two different sets of rules. They cannot, therefore, be equated. Further, granting of additional benefits has financial implications also. Hence, specifying the date for the conferment of such additional benefits cannot be considered as arbitrary." 45) In the present case, the petitioners sought for the revision of pension in the revised pay scales, which was granted with effect from 01.04.2010 even though they retired on 31.03.2010. Following the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Boota Singh and Anr.” (referred supra), it can be said that the workmen as on 01.04.2010 and retired persons would be governed by two different set of rules. Further, granting of additional benefits has financial implications also. Hence, specifying the cut-off date for the conferment of financial benefit to the working employees cannot be considered as arbitrary and irrational as the working employees and retired persons cannot be equated. 46) It is, therefore, beyond any shadow of doubt that the financial implication is a relevant criterion for the State Government to determine as to what benefits can be granted pursuant to or in furtherance of the recommendations made by the Pay Revision Commission. In the present facts of the case, the pay revision is granted to the working employees with effect from 01.04.2010. If monetary benefit is payable only from 01.04.2010, all rights to get the benefits computed on the basis of the revised scale of pay would only be for the purpose of payment of pay with effect from

01.04.2010 only, and they will not be applicable to the petitioners, 25 VS,J WP_35787_2018 who retired one day prior to the date of implementation of Pay Revision as they are no longer employees of the Corporation as on

01.04.2010. Further, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the cut-off implementation of revised pay scales specified T.O.O.(CGM-HRD&Trg) Ms.No.14 dated 15.04.2010, they can challenge the same before appropriate forum, but the petitioners did not choose to do so. 47) As discussed above, admittedly, the Corporation issued two different T.O.Os, i.e. T.O.O.(CGM-HRD&Trg) Ms.No.14 dated

15.04.2010 for the working employees and APTRANSCO issued T.O.O. (CGM-HRD&Trg) Ms.No.26 dated 21.04.2010 sanctioning consolidated pension and Dearness relief to the pensioners who retired/died while in service before 01.04.2010. Admittedly, as the petitioners retired on 31.03.2010, T.O.O. (CGM-HRD&Trg) Ms.No.26 dated 21.04.2010 is applicable to the petitioners and the counter- affidavit filed by the respondents would clearly establish the fact that the pension of the petitioners was already fixed in accordance with T.O.O. (CGM-HRD&Trg) Ms.No.26 dated 21.04.2010, but the same is disputed by the petitioners. 48) It is pertinent to mention here that APTRANSCO issued T.O.O. (CGM-HRD&Trg) Ms.No.26 dated 21.04.2010 sanctioning consolidated pension and Dearness relief to pensioners who retired/died while in Service before 01.04.2010. Admittedly, in the present case, as the petitioners retired on 31.03.2010, this Court is of the opinion that the said T.O.O. (CGM-HRD&Trg) Ms.No.26 dated

21.04.2010 is applicable to them. 26 VS,J WP_35787_2018 49) With the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioners in accordance with T.O.O. (CGM-HRD&Trg) Ms.No.26 dated 21.04.2010, if not revised so far. There shall be no order as to costs. 50) Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

24.08.2026 Ksp