Surendra Pratap Gupta v. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, praying for fixation of basic sca

7. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 17.07.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-10 to the petition, with a direction to the competent authority to consider the grant of advance or special increment or temporary increment to the petitioner considering Regulation 56(4) of the Regulations, 1960.

8. In pursuance thereof, the respondents vide order dated 15.09.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, have rejected the claim of the petitioner by contending that in terms of the Rules and the regulations the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any increment as he retired prior to completion of 3 years of service and Regulation 56(4) of the Regulations, 1960, does not enable grant of any increment to the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner while raising a challenge to the said order has argued that the Handbook for Central Government Servants, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure RA-1 to the Rejoinder Affidavit, clearly provides for an annual increment after 12 months of service.

10. The contention is that once the said Handbook provides for an increment consequently the respondents have patently erred in not granting the increment to the petitioner and having insisted on their stand in terms of Rule 4A of the Rules, 1985 to grant an increment only after completion of 3 years of service.

11. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

12. From perusal of records, it emerges that the petitioner had been promoted as Administrative Officer on 08.08.2005. His pay had been fixed after grant of two stagnation increments in the lower post and as such the petitioner was working at the maximum of the pay scale. Rule 4A of the Rules, 1985 provides for grant of an increment after a person has worked for a period of three years. As the petitioner retired prior to completion of 3 years after his promotion as Administrative Officer consequently he was not granted an increment.

13. This Court vide judgment and order dated 17.07.2023 had required the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of advance or special increment or temporary increment to the petitioner considering the Regulation 56(4) of the Regulations, 1960 which in turn has been rejected by the respondents vide order impugned dated

15.09.2023.

14. So far as Regulation 56(4) of the Regulations, 1960, is concerned, the respondents have indicated in their counter affidavit that the said special increment has only been extended where circumstances required it to be extended to outstanding sports persons for the purpose of their out of turn promotion and grant of special increment but has not been extended to any other person. Copy of the order dated

05.10.2019 is Annexure CA-1 to the Counter Affidavit.

15. From a perusal of the order dated 05.10.2019 it is apparent that the respondents have considered that the case of the petitioner is not one where circumstances require to grant a special increment. Even though, Regulation 56(4) of the Regulations, 1960 may be providing for an advance increment but the claim of the petitioner would be covered in terms of Rule 4A of the Rules, 1985 which clearly provides for grant of an increment only after completion of 3 years of service. The petitioner being an employee of the Corporation would obviously be governed by the Rules governing his service conditions. The vires of the Rule 4A of the Rules, 1985 had not been challenged by the petitioner either in the earlier round of litigation, which had clearly been observed by the writ Court vide judgment and order dated

17.07.2023 or even while filing the instant petition and thus considering that Rule 4A of the Rules, 1985 clearly places an embargo for grant of an increment only after completion of 3 years of service which the petitioner admittedly did not complete having retired prior to completion of 3 years of service and the respondents have taken a conscious decision in terms of Regulation 56(4) of the Regulations, 1960, to only extend the benefit of an increment to outstanding sports persons consequently there cannot be said to be any error in the order dated 15.09.2023 as has been passed by the respondents.

16. So far as the reliance placed on the Handbook, 2003, suffice to state that the same pertains to the Central Government Servants and the petitioner is not a Central Government Servant rather is an employee of the Corporation which has got its own rules pertaining to fixation of pay. Thus, even the said rules would not come to the rescue of the petitioner.

17. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 A. Katiyar AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

7. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 17.07.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-10 to the petition, with a direction to the competent authority to consider the grant of advance or special increment or temporary increment to the petitioner considering Regulation 56(4) of the Regulations, 1960.

8. In pursuance thereof, the respondents vide order dated 15.09.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, have rejected the claim of the petitioner by contending that in terms of the Rules and the regulations the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any increment as he retired prior to completion of 3 years of service and Regulation 56(4) of the Regulations, 1960, does not enable grant of any increment to the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner while raising a challenge to the said order has argued that the Handbook for Central Government Servants, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure RA-1 to the Rejoinder Affidavit, clearly provides for an annual increment after 12 months of service.

10. The contention is that once the said Handbook provides for an increment consequently the respondents have patently erred in not granting the increment to the petitioner and having insisted on their stand in terms of Rule 4A of the Rules, 1985 to grant an increment only after completion of 3 years of service.

11. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

12. From perusal of records, it emerges that the petitioner had been promoted as Administrative Officer on 08.08.2005. His pay had been fixed after grant of two stagnation increments in the lower post and as such the petitioner was working at the maximum of the pay scale. Rule 4A of the Rules, 1985 provides for grant of an increment after a person has worked for a period of three years. As the petitioner retired prior to completion of 3 years after his promotion as Administrative Officer consequently he was not granted an increment.

13. This Court vide judgment and order dated 17.07.2023 had required the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of advance or special increment or temporary increment to the petitioner considering the Regulation 56(4) of the Regulations, 1960 which in turn has been rejected by the respondents vide order impugned dated

15.09.2023.

14. So far as Regulation 56(4) of the Regulations, 1960, is concerned, the respondents have indicated in their counter affidavit that the said special increment has only been extended where circumstances required it to be extended to outstanding sports persons for the purpose of their out of turn promotion and grant of special increment but has not been extended to any other person. Copy of the order dated

05.10.2019 is Annexure CA-1 to the Counter Affidavit.

15. From a perusal of the order dated 05.10.2019 it is apparent that the respondents have considered that the case of the petitioner is not one where circumstances require to grant a special increment. Even though, Regulation 56(4) of the Regulations, 1960 may be providing for an advance increment but the claim of the petitioner would be covered in terms of Rule 4A of the Rules, 1985 which clearly provides for grant of an increment only after completion of 3 years of service. The petitioner being an employee of the Corporation would obviously be governed by the Rules governing his service conditions. The vires of the Rule 4A of the Rules, 1985 had not been challenged by the petitioner either in the earlier round of litigation, which had clearly been observed by the writ Court vide judgment and order dated

17.07.2023 or even while filing the instant petition and thus considering that Rule 4A of the Rules, 1985 clearly places an embargo for grant of an increment only after completion of 3 years of service which the petitioner admittedly did not complete having retired prior to completion of 3 years of service and the respondents have taken a conscious decision in terms of Regulation 56(4) of the Regulations, 1960, to only extend the benefit of an increment to outstanding sports persons consequently there cannot be said to be any error in the order dated 15.09.2023 as has been passed by the respondents.

16. So far as the reliance placed on the Handbook, 2003, suffice to state that the same pertains to the Central Government Servants and the petitioner is not a Central Government Servant rather is an employee of the Corporation which has got its own rules pertaining to fixation of pay. Thus, even the said rules would not come to the rescue of the petitioner.

17. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 A. Katiyar AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench