The High Court · 2016

OP (CAT).No.144 of 2016 (Z) 8. N.D.VASANTHAKUMARI, RETIRED POSTMASTER, PUNALUR HEAD POST OFFICE, RESIDING AT GOPAVADAM,THOLICODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 333. 9. P.J.JOSE, RETIRED POSTMASTER, KATTAPPANA HEAD POST OFFICE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PARAPURACKAL HOUSE, KANJAR,KUDAYATHOOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 590. BY ADVS.SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN SRI.T.ISSACRESPONDENTS :-------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS,DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI 110 001. 2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL ,CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI 682 020 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ALAPPUZHA 688 012. 5. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, KOTTAYAM 689 645 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SOUTH DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 036. 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645. 8. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, IDUKKI DIVISION, THODUPUZHA 685 584. R1-R8 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2016, THECOURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (CAT).No.144 of 2016 (Z) -----------------------------APPENDIXPETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :--------------------- EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE O.A.NO.180/00050/2014 FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE C.A.T.ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 21/12/2013 TOGETHER WITH ITS ENCLOSURES. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 2/6/2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE C.A.T. ERNAKULAMK BENCH IN O.A.NO.180/00050/2014. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9/2/2016 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM IN O.A.NO.180/00050/2014. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER GO.Ms.No.311 DATED 31/12/2014 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.----------------------True copy P.A to Judge P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.------------------------------------------------------------------O.P.(CAT)No.144 of 2016------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8th day of June, 2016JUDGMENTRamachandra Menon, J.The petitioners have got a common grievance in notreckoning the increment which fell due on the first of July aftertheir retirement from service pursuant to attaining the age ofsuperannuation. 2.The factual position as disclosed from the proceedingis that, all the petitioners herein were serving the PostalDepartment under different capacities and they retired from theservice on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years, onthe 30th of June of different years from 2007 to 2012. Pursuant tothe 6th Pay Commission, the Central Government issued revisedCCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 which was to take effect from1.1.2006. Pursuant to the said Rules, the increment payablecould only be with effect from the first of July onwards. Thepensionary benefits were calculated and disbursed to thepetitioners reckoning their last drawn salary as in June, when O.P.(CAT)No.144 of 20162they retired from the service. They put up a contention that theincrement which was due on first of July, ought to have beenreckoned for the purpose of working out the service benefits. Theclaim was not acceded to by the Department, which made them toapproach the Tribunal by filing the O.A. 3.The claim was resisted by the Department pointing outthat there was absolutely no basis for the contention raised, asthe applicants had already retired from service on the last day ofJune and that the master and servant relationship stood cut offwhen the increment fell due on the '1st of July' of the concernedyears from 2007 to 2012. It was also pointed out that, theapplicants had not chosen to challenge the Rule and in so far asthe Rule was not under challenge, no relief could be extended bythe Tribunal under any circumstance. 4.After hearing both the sides, the version put forward bythe respondent/Government was accepted and it was accordingly,that interference was declined and the O.A. was dismissed, whichin turn is under challenge in this Original Petition. O.P.(CAT)No.144 of 201635.Heard Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, the learned counselappearing for the petitioners, at length and also the learnedAssistant Solicitor General who appeared on behalf of therespondents.6.There is no dispute with regard to the Rule position. Byvirtue of F.R.56 and by virtue of the mandate under Rule 10 of theCCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, which is based on therecommendation given by the 6th CPC (paragraph 11.5), the dateof annual increment shall be 'first of July' in all cases. As borne bythe detailed discussion made by the Tribunal in paragraph 6 andelsewhere of the order under challenge, such a date was fixed bythe Government of India based on the suggestions/recommendations made by an 'expert body' constituted by theGovernment and the rationale based such fixation was not underchallenge and the same is not liable to be subjected to judicialreview. The Fundamental Rule 56 says that, if the date of birth ofa Government servant falls on the first day of particular month, hewill have to retire from service on the previous day, after noon. O.P.(CAT)No.144 of 20164There is no challenge with regard to this Rule as well. Therespondents have made it clear that computation of theretirement benefits has been done strictly in conformity with themandate of Rule 55 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and that nomistake in this regard has been pointed out by the applicants. 7.The claim was preferred, on the strength of thecontention as to the necessity for paying periodical increments oncompletion of the requisite extent of service, on an yearly basis.Reliance was also sought to be placed on the decision rendered bythe Supreme Court in S.Banerji Vs. UOI (AIR 1990 SC 285).The said decision was considered by the Tribunal and it has beenheld in categorical terms that the same is not applicable, in so faras it was a case where the Government employee had taken upvoluntary retirement and sought to have such voluntaryretirement with effect from first of January, 1986 and not from31.12.1985. It was in the said circumstance, that the benefit wasgranted by the Supreme Court to the said Government employee;which does not come to the rescue of the applicants. The Tribunal O.P.(CAT)No.144 of 20165also made a reference to the judgment rendered by a Full Benchof the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Principal AccountantGeneral Vs. C.Subba Rao (2005 (2) ALT 25) and the verdictpassed by the Madras High Court in UOI Vs. R.Sundara Rajan(W.P.No.28433/2005 & WPMP No.30978/2005). 8.After hearing the matter at length and after goingthrough the reasoning given by the Tribunal and also consideringthe legal position explained by the Full Bench of the AndhraPradesh High Court in Principal Accountant General Vs.C.Subba Rao (2005 (2) ALT 25) and the verdict passed bythe Madras High Court in UOI Vs. R.Sundara Rajan(W.P.No.28433/2005 & WPMP No.30978/2005), we findthat there is absolutely no scope for any interference. 9.During the course of hearing, the learned counsel forthe petitioners also sought to place reliance on Ext.P4, which is acopy of the order bearing G.O.Ms.No.311 dated 31.12.2014 issuedby the Tamil Nadu Government. At the very out set, we would liketo make it clear that the said order passed by the said O.P.(CAT)No.144 of 20166Government does not have any binding force to decide the issueat hand. Even going by the contents of Ext.P4, what has beenprovided by the said order is only a matter of 'concession' to thepersons, by giving the benefit of notional increment purely for thepurpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose.Extension of such concession is a matter of consideration for theappropriate Government, which cannot be sought for as a matterof right or precedent, when the matter is adjudicated by a court oflaw. 10.We find that there is absolutely no merit in the OriginalPetition. It stands dismissed accordingly. We also make it clearthat we have not dealt with the correctness or otherwise of Ext.P4in this matter. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGESd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGEskjTrue copy P.A to Judge