High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Rafeek Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 18th August, 2020, whereby the third stage benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme as per the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission, 2008 has come to be rejected only on the ground that due date for conferring benefit upon the petitioner has fallen a day subsequent to his retirement.

3. It is admitted fact that petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31st December, 2019 and as on that day he had completed 26 years of service, so the ACP had become due but since it would have been payable on the next date, the same remained denied to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authority of the Madras High Court in the case of P Ayyamperumal v. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and others, 2017 LawSuit (Mad) 5288, in which the annual increment benefit has been held to be admissible to such employees who retired a day before the annual increment, was made payable and the ratio was that the annual increment became due on completion of full one year of service and since the employee had discharged duties for entire one year for which they became entitle to additional increment, the same should not be denied only on the ground that he attained the age of superannuation a day before its actually made payable. He has placed reliance upon paragraph 6 & 7 of the judgment that run as under: "6. In the case on hand, the petitioner got retired on 30.06.2013. As per the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the increment has to be given only on 01.07.2013, but he had been superannuated on 30.06.2013 itself. The judgment referred to by the petitioner in State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department and others v. M. Balasubramaniam, reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 6525, was passed under similar circumstances on 20.09.2012, wherein this Court confirmed the order passed in W.P.No.8440 of 2011 allowing the writ petition filed by the employee, by observing that the employee had completed one full year of service from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003, which entitled him to the benefit of increment which accrued to him during that period.

7.The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, 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 full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose."

5. It is submitted that the said judgment has also been upheld by the Supreme Court as the SLP filed against the same being Special Leave Petition (C) No.- 22008 of 2018 which was dismissed on 23rd July, 2018 and review petition also came to be dismissed on 8th August, 2019.

6. Learned Standing Counsel sought to justify the order for the reasons assigned therein.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the record, the Court is of the considered view that when an employee becomes entitle to a benefit under an Assured Career Progression Scheme under the Government order for completing certain period of service then he becomes entitled for the same on the date that service period ends, meaning thereby if employee becomes entitled to certain benefits upon completion of 26 years of continuous service then he would be entitled to the same even if he retires on day when he completes period of service as he demits his office only in the afternoon with the closing of office time and therefore, he remains employee of the establishment until the complete day that ends in the midnight.

8. In the circumstances, therefore, if annual increment is held payable to such employees for their rendering one complete year of service even though the same is made payable on a day after the date on which the employee retires i.e the employee retires on 31st December and the annual increment becomes payable on 1st January, then the same is held to be payable to him on 31st itself as it becomes admissible to him 31st December applying the same anomaly.

9. In the considered view of the Court the benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme should also be made admissible on same principle and should be held payable to such employees who complete their requisite period of service on the date of their attaining the age of superannuation.

10. Thus,petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 18th December, 2020 passed by the respondent No.- 4 is hereby quashed.

11. The respondents are directed to confer the benefit of third stage benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme upon the petitioner if he otherwise he fulfills all the parameters after due verification of service records.

12. It is made clear that petitioner would be only getting benefit in terms of revision of his pay on the date of his attaining the age of superannuation and consequential post retirement benefits.

13. Appropriate orders in this regard shall be passed by the authority within a period one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Atmesh ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Rafeek Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 18th August, 2020, whereby the third stage benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme as per the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission, 2008 has come to be rejected only on the ground that due date for conferring benefit upon the petitioner has fallen a day subsequent to his retirement.

3. It is admitted fact that petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31st December, 2019 and as on that day he had completed 26 years of service, so the ACP had become due but since it would have been payable on the next date, the same remained denied to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authority of the Madras High Court in the case of P Ayyamperumal v. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and others, 2017 LawSuit (Mad) 5288, in which the annual increment benefit has been held to be admissible to such employees who retired a day before the annual increment, was made payable and the ratio was that the annual increment became due on completion of full one year of service and since the employee had discharged duties for entire one year for which they became entitle to additional increment, the same should not be denied only on the ground that he attained the age of superannuation a day before its actually made payable. He has placed reliance upon paragraph 6 & 7 of the judgment that run as under: "6. In the case on hand, the petitioner got retired on 30.06.2013. As per the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the increment has to be given only on 01.07.2013, but he had been superannuated on 30.06.2013 itself. The judgment referred to by the petitioner in State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department and others v. M. Balasubramaniam, reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 6525, was passed under similar circumstances on 20.09.2012, wherein this Court confirmed the order passed in W.P.No.8440 of 2011 allowing the writ petition filed by the employee, by observing that the employee had completed one full year of service from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003, which entitled him to the benefit of increment which accrued to him during that period.

7.The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, 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 full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose."

5. It is submitted that the said judgment has also been upheld by the Supreme Court as the SLP filed against the same being Special Leave Petition (C) No.- 22008 of 2018 which was dismissed on 23rd July, 2018 and review petition also came to be dismissed on 8th August, 2019.

6. Learned Standing Counsel sought to justify the order for the reasons assigned therein.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the record, the Court is of the considered view that when an employee becomes entitle to a benefit under an Assured Career Progression Scheme under the Government order for completing certain period of service then he becomes entitled for the same on the date that service period ends, meaning thereby if employee becomes entitled to certain benefits upon completion of 26 years of continuous service then he would be entitled to the same even if he retires on day when he completes period of service as he demits his office only in the afternoon with the closing of office time and therefore, he remains employee of the establishment until the complete day that ends in the midnight.

8. In the circumstances, therefore, if annual increment is held payable to such employees for their rendering one complete year of service even though the same is made payable on a day after the date on which the employee retires i.e the employee retires on 31st December and the annual increment becomes payable on 1st January, then the same is held to be payable to him on 31st itself as it becomes admissible to him 31st December applying the same anomaly.

9. In the considered view of the Court the benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme should also be made admissible on same principle and should be held payable to such employees who complete their requisite period of service on the date of their attaining the age of superannuation.

10. Thus,petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 18th December, 2020 passed by the respondent No.- 4 is hereby quashed.

11. The respondents are directed to confer the benefit of third stage benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme upon the petitioner if he otherwise he fulfills all the parameters after due verification of service records.

12. It is made clear that petitioner would be only getting benefit in terms of revision of his pay on the date of his attaining the age of superannuation and consequential post retirement benefits.

13. Appropriate orders in this regard shall be passed by the authority within a period one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Atmesh ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad