# R.K. Prasad & Ors v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 885
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-10
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 13305 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/r-k-prasad-ors-v-u-o-i-ors-53067
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Determination of basic
pay - Grant of notional increment -
Pension - The annual increment earned by
a
government
employee
during
the
previous year could not be denied to him
for
the
purpose
of
determining
his
pensionary benefits, merely because he
was not in service on the day the
increment actually fell due, that is, if he
had retired a day before it fell due, though
completing one full year of service,
otherwise entitling him to increment. The
increment had to be notionally granted and its
benefit extended for the purpose of determining
the employee's post-retiral benefits. (Para 7, 8)

B. Pendency of the application does not
entitle the respondents, including an
officer of the said respondents, to say that
they are not in a position to carry out the
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders of this Court made following the
law laid down by the Supreme Court,
merely because clarification applications
have been filed. Most certainly, this Court is
bound by the law declared by the Supreme
Court u/Article 141 of the Constitution and every
officer of the respondent is bound to carry out
every writ of this Court, unless it is set aside or
stayed in appeal. (Para 11)

After
the
Supreme
Court
passes
a
judgment, there is nothing not final about
it. There is no Court above the Supreme Court,
and once a judgment is passed by their
Lordships, it is the end of the road for both
litigants.

An order cannot be disregarded by a
sundry officer of the government, saying
that he will disregard the law laid down by
a Constitutional Court in a judgment, and
more than that, a writ inter parties
awaiting
a
policy
decision
of
the
Government. It is true that every litigant has
the right to seek a clarification of an order
passed by a Court, even a Constitutional Court,
but it is not open to any officer of the
Government to say that the benefit of the
Supreme Court's judgment or compliance
of the High Court's order, if not stayed or
set aside by the Supreme Court, will
depend upon the policy decision of the
Department of Personnel & Training, GOI.
The Government of India cannot sit in judgment
on a writ of the Court, once issued. A writ stops
only if it is stayed in competent proceedings,
like an appeal, if allowed from the order or a
review
or
a
clarification
or
some
such
proceedings. It is all the more contumacious on
the part of the Director General, RPF, Railway
Board to say that he is not in a position to
extend benefit of one notional increment to the
petitioners who retired on the 30th June as per
the judgment. (Para 10)

The petitioners and each of them would be
entitled to receive notional increments for the
respective years in which they superannuated on
the 30th of June, but they would be paid pension
on the basis of their revised emoluments with the
notional increments added with effect from 1st
May, 2023. (Para 14, 15, 17)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,827 of 56,757. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39827 for what follows._

3 All. R.K. Prasad & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
885
10. The grievance which can be
entertained by the Lokayukta has also been
specified in Section 2(d), which is to
include a claim by a person that he
sustained injustice or undue hardship as a
consequence of maladministration; or a
complaint to the effect that an authority
empowered to make appointments to a
public service or post in connection with
the affairs of the State of Uttar Pradesh has
after the commencement of the Uttar
Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas
(Amendment)
Act,
1989
made
any
appointment in breach of the quota of
reservation for members of Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes laid down by
the State Government.

11. The
allegation
that
an
appointment of a public servant has been
made illegally or contrary to law would
apparently not fall within the realm of
jurisdiction of the Lokayukta or Up
Lokayukta. This is particularly so as
Section 8(1)(b) excludes matters from the
purview
of
jurisdiction
of
the
Lokayukta/Up Lokayukta. Clause (d) of the
Third Schedule clearly postulates that
action taken in respect of appointments,
removals, pay, discipline, etc., would be
excluded from the scope of inquiry by the
Lokayukta/Up Lokayukta, except matters
relating to claims, for pension, gratuity,
provident fund, etc., which arise on
retirement, removal or termination of
service.

12. The appointment of public
servant or any dispute in respect of service
conditions since are otherwise regulated by
the statutory scheme they are supposedly
kept out of the provisions of the Act of
1975. Once that be so, we find that the
complaint
made
by
the
petitioner
questioning the appointment of private
respondent before the Up Lokayukta itself
is not maintainable. If that be so, no
direction
can
be
issued
to
decide
petitioner's complaint.

13. The writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 885
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - A No. 13305 of 2024

R.K. Prasad & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mr. Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, Adv.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Sudarshan Singh, Central Government
Counsel

A. Service Law - Determination of basic
pay - Grant of notional increment -
Pension - The annual increment earned by
a
government
employee
during
the
previous year could not be denied to him
for
the
purpose
of
determining
his
pensionary benefits, merely because he
was not in service on the day the
increment actually fell due, that is, if he
had retired a day before it fell due, though
completing one full year of service,
otherwise entitling him to increment. The
increment had to be notionally granted and its
benefit extended for the purpose of determining
the employee's post-retiral benefits. (Para 7, 8)

B. Pendency of the application does not
entitle the respondents, including an
officer of the said respondents, to say that
they are not in a position to carry out the
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders of this Court made following the
law laid down by the Supreme Court,
merely because clarification applications
have been filed. Most certainly, this Court is
bound by the law declared by the Supreme
Court u/Article 141 of the Constitution and every
officer of the respondent is bound to carry out
every writ of this Court, unless it is set aside or
stayed in appeal. (Para 11)

After
the
Supreme
Court
passes
a
judgment, there is nothing not final about
it. There is no Court above the Supreme Court,
and once a judgment is passed by their
Lordships, it is the end of the road for both
litigants.

An order cannot be disregarded by a
sundry officer of the government, saying
that he will disregard the law laid down by
a Constitutional Court in a judgment, and
more than that, a writ inter parties
awaiting
a
policy
decision
of
the
Government. It is true that every litigant has
the right to seek a clarification of an order
passed by a Court, even a Constitutional Court,
but it is not open to any officer of the
Government to say that the benefit of the
Supreme Court's judgment or compliance
of the High Court's order, if not stayed or
set aside by the Supreme Court, will
depend upon the policy decision of the
Department of Personnel & Training, GOI.
The Government of India cannot sit in judgment
on a writ of the Court, once issued. A writ stops
only if it is stayed in competent proceedings,
like an appeal, if allowed from the order or a
review
or
a
clarification
or
some
such
proceedings. It is all the more contumacious on
the part of the Director General, RPF, Railway
Board to say that he is not in a position to
extend benefit of one notional increment to the
petitioners who retired on the 30th June as per
the judgment. (Para 10)

The petitioners and each of them would be
entitled to receive notional increments for the
respective years in which they superannuated on
the 30th of June, but they would be paid pension
on the basis of their revised emoluments with the
notional increments added with effect from 1st
May, 2023. (Para 14, 15, 17)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Director (Administration & Human Resources)
KPTCL & ors. Vs C.P. Mundinamani & ors.,
(2023) 14 SCC 411 (Para 3)

2. U.O.I. & anr. Vs M. Siddaraj, Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 4722 of 2021 (Para 8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This writ petition has been filed by
twelve petitioners, all employees of the
Railway Protection Force1, who retired
from service during different years, but on
30th of June. Since they were not in service
on 1st of July of the year in which they
retired, the annual increment they earned
for the period commencing 1st July of the
year preceding their retirement and 30th of
June was denied to them on ground that
they were not in service on 1st of July of
the year that they retired, when the
increment for the relative year would fall
due. In substance, therefore, what the
petitioners claim is that though they have
earned the annual increment during the
relative year of retirement, working for the
entire period of one year from 1st July to
30th of June of the year they retired, it has
been denied to them on the specious ground
that on the day the increment actually fell
due i.e. 1st July in the year of their
respective retirements, they were not in
service. All the petitioners pray that a
mandamus
be
issued,
ordering
the
respondents to grant one notional increment
to them as on 1st July of the respective
years of their retirement, which, in each
case, fell on 30th of June of that year, for
the limited purpose of determining their
pensionary benefits. They further seek a
command to the respondents to redetermine the basic pay payable to each of
3 All. R.K. Prasad & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
887
the petitioners, after grant of notional
increment, revise their pension benefits
accordingly and pay arrears accrued along
with interest.

2.The
details
of
the
twelve
petitioners are set forth in tabular form
below :

Petiti
oner
No.

Petitio
ner's
name

Post
held at
the
time of
retirem
ent

Date
of
retire
ment

Clai
m

1
R.K.
Prasad

Assista
nt
Security
Commi
ssioner

30.06.
2009

Notio
nal
incre
ment
for
the
year
2009

2
Shiv
Pujan

Inspect
or

30.06.
2017

Notio
nal
incre
ment
for
the
year
2017
3
Vindh
yachal

Inspect
or

30.06.
2014

Notio
nal
incre
ment
for
the
year
2014

4
Chhedi
Lal
SubInspect
30.06.
2024
Notio
nal

or

incre
ment
for
the
year
2024

5
Kedar
Nath
Assista
nt SubInspect
or
30.06.
2017

Notio
nal
incre
ment
for
the
year
2017

6
Virend
ra
Prasad
Sharm
a

Constab
le

30.06.
2023

Notio
nal
incre
ment
for
the
year
2023

7
Moti
Lal

Head
Constab
le
30.06.
2021

Notio
nal
incre
ment
for
the
year
2021

8
Ram
Prasad
Ram

Assista
nt SubInspect
or

30.06.
2011
Notio
nal
incre
ment
for
the
year
2011

9
Krishn
anand
Assista
nt Sub30.06.
2008
Notio
nal
888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mall

Inspect
or

incre
ment
for
the
year
2008

10
Virend
ra
Prasad

Head
Constab
le

30.06.
2008
Notio
nal
incre
ment
for
the
year
2008

11
Rama
Shanke
r Singh

Head
Constab
le

30.06.
2022

Notio
nal
incre
ment
for
the
year
2022
12
Ram
Prasad
SubInspect
or

30.06.
2018

Notio
nal
incre
ment
for
the
year
2018

3. The petitioners say that they have
been denied the accrued increment on 30th
June, otherwise due to them, merely
because they retired a day before 1st of
July, when increment would fall due. The
petitioners have relied on preponderant
authority of High Courts as well as the
Supreme
Court
in
Director
(Administration and Human Resources)
KPTCL
and
others
v.
C.P.
Mundinamani and others2, where it was
held
that
increment
payable
to
a
government servant retiring on 30th June
was to be granted to him notionally and his
post-retiral benefits calculated on the basis
of basic pay determined, with notional
increment added.

4. This Court issued a notice of
motion vide order dated 31.08.2024, and
after a reference to the settled position of
law, in view of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani
(supra), required the Director General,
RPF, Railway Board, New Delhi to file his
own affidavit, showing cause why notional
annual increment applicable in case of each
of the twelve petitioners has not been
awarded and their post-retiral benefits
revised accordingly. In answer, Manoj
Yadav, Director General, RPF, Railway
Board, New Delhi has filed his own
affidavit.

5. When this petition came up for
admission on 20.09.2024, the aforesaid
personal affidavit of the Director General
was filed in Court. The Court proposed to
treat the personal affidavit as counter
affidavit to the writ petition, to which, Mr.
Sudarshan
Singh,
learned
Central
Government Counsel did not object.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner waived
his right to file a rejoinder. The petition
was admitted to hearing, which proceeded
forthwith. Judgment was reserved.

6. Heard Mr. Ramesh Chandra
Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. Sudarshan Singh, learned Central
Government Counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents.

7. Now, in C.P. Mundinamani,
their Lordships of the Supreme Court
considered the opinions of various High
3 All. R.K. Prasad & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
889
Courts across the country, as already said,
and laid down in unmistakable terms that it
would lead to arbitrariness if a government
servant were denied annual increment,
which he had already earned during the
preceding year of his service, merely
because he retired a day before the annual
increment actually fell due and would have
been added to his salary, if he had
continued in service for a day more. This is
the clear purport of the law laid down in
C.P. Mundinamani, where their Lordships
have remarked :

 16. Now, so far as the submission
on behalf of the appellants that as the
increment has accrued on the next day on
which it is earned and therefore, even in a
case where an employee has earned the
increment one day prior to his retirement
but he is not in service the day on which
the increment is accrued is concerned,
while considering the aforesaid issue, the
object and purpose of grant of annual
increment is required to be considered.

 17. A government servant is
granted the annual increment on the basis
of his good conduct while rendering oneyear 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 timescale, 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 efficiency in
the preceding one year.

 18. In Gopal Singh [Gopal Singh
v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del
2640] (sic Nand Vijay Singh [Nand Vijay
Singh v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine
All 1090] ) in paras 20, 23 and 24, the
Delhi (sic Allahabad) High Court has
observed and held as under : (Nand Vijay
Singh case [Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of
India, 2021 SCC OnLine All 1090] , SCC
OnLine All)

 "20. Payment of salary and
increment to a central government servant
is regulated by the provisions of F.R., CSR
and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules.
Pay defined in F.R. 9(21) means the
amount drawn monthly by a central
government servant and includes the
increment. A plain composite reading of
applicable provisions leaves no ambiguity
that annual increment is given to a
government servant to enable him to
discharge duties of the post and that pay
and allowances are also attached to the
post. Article 43 of the CSR defines
progressive appointment to mean an
appointment
wherein
the
pay
is
progressive, subject to good behaviour of
an officer. It connotes that pay rises, by
periodical increments from a minimum to a
maximum. The increment in case of
progressive appointment is specified in
Article 151 of the CSR to mean that
increment accrues from the date following
that on which it is earned. The scheme,
taken cumulatively, clearly suggests that
890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appointment of a central government
servant is a progressive appointment and
periodical increment in pay from a
minimum to maximum is part of the pay
structure. Article 151 of CSR contemplates
that increment accrues from the day
following
which
it
is
earned.
This
increment is not a matter of course but is
dependent upon good conduct of the central
government
servant.
It
is,
therefore,
apparent that central government employee
earns increment on the basis of his good
conduct for specified period i.e. a year in
case of annual increment. Increment in pay
is thus an integral part of progressive
appointment and accrues from the day
following which it is earned.

 ***

 23. Annual increment though is
attached to the post & becomes payable on
a day following which it is earned but the
day on which increment accrues or
becomes payable is not conclusive or
determinative. In the statutory scheme
governing
progressive
appointment
increment becomes due for the services
rendered over a year by the government
servant subject to his good behaviour. The
pay of a central government servant rises,
by periodical increments, from a minimum
to the maximum in the prescribed scale.
The entitlement to receive increment
therefore crystallises when the government
servant completes requisite length of
service with good conduct and becomes
payable on the succeeding day.

 24. ... In isolation of the purpose
it serves the fixation of day succeeding the
date of entitlement has no intelligible
differentia nor any object is to be achieved
by it. The central government servant
retiring on 30th June has already completed
a year of service and the increment has
been earned provided his conduct was
good. It would thus be wholly arbitrary if
the increment earned by the central
government employee on the basis of his
good conduct for a year is denied only on
the ground that he was not in employment
on the succeeding day when increment
became payable. In the case of a
government servant retiring on 30th of June
the next day on which increment falls
due/becomes payable looses significance
and must give way to the right of the
government servant to receive increment
due to satisfactory services of a year so that
the scheme is not construed in a manner
that if offends the spirit of reasonableness
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. The scheme for payment of
increment would have to be read as whole
and one part of Article 151 of CSR cannot
be read in isolation so as to frustrate the
other part particularly when the other part
creates right in the central government
servant to receive increment. This would
ensure
that
scheme
of
progressive
appointment remains intact and the rights
earned by a government servant remains
protected and are not denied due to a
fortuitous circumstance."

 19. The Allahabad High Court in
Nand Vijay Singh [Nand Vijay Singh v.
Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine All
1090] while dealing with the same issue
has observed and held in para 24 as under :
(SCC OnLine All)

 "24. Law is settled that where
entitlement to receive a benefit crystallises
in law its denial would be arbitrary unless it
is for a valid reason. The only reason for
denying benefit of increment, culled out
from the scheme is that the central
government servant is not holding the post
3 All. R.K. Prasad & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
891
on the day when the increment becomes
payable. This cannot be a valid ground for
denying increment since the day following
the date on which increment is earned only
serves the purpose of ensuring completion
of a year's service with good conduct and
no other purpose can be culled out for it.
The concept of day following which the
increment is earned has otherwise no
purpose to achieve. In isolation of the
purpose it serves the fixation of day
succeeding the date of entitlement has no
intelligible differentia nor any object is to
be achieved by it. The central government
servant retiring on 30th June has already
completed a year of service and the
increment has been earned provided his
conduct was good. It would thus be wholly
arbitrary if the increment earned by the
central government employee on the basis
of his good conduct for a year is denied
only on the ground that he was not in
employment on the succeeding day when
increment became payable. In the case of a
government servant retiring on 30th of June
the next day on which increment falls
due/becomes payable looses significance
and must give way to the right of the
government servant to receive increment
due to satisfactory services of a year so that
the scheme is not construed in a manner
that if offends the spirit of reasonableness
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. The scheme for payment of
increment would have to be read as whole
and one part of Article 151 of CSR cannot
be read in isolation so as to frustrate the
other part particularly when the other part
creates right in the central government
servant to receive increment. This would
ensure
that
scheme
of
progressive
appointment remains intact and the rights
earned by a government servant remains
protected and are not denied due to a
fortuitous circumstance."
 20. Similar view has also been
expressed
by
different
High
Courts,
namely, the Gujarat [State of Gujarat v.
Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara, 2022 SCC
OnLine Guj 2522] High Court, the Madhya
Pradesh [Yogendra Singh Bhadauria v.
State of M.P., 2020 SCC OnLine MP 4654]
High Court, the Orissa [Arun Kumar
Biswal v. State of Odisha, 2021 SCC
OnLine Ori 2368] High Court and the
Madras [P. Ayyamperumal v. Central
Administrative Tribunal, 2017 SCC OnLine
Mad 37963] High Court. As observed
hereinabove, to interpret Regulation 40(1)
of the Regulations in the manner in which
the appellants have understood and/or
interpretated would lead to arbitrariness
and denying a government servant the
benefit of annual increment which he has
already earned while rendering specified
period of service with good conduct and
efficiency in the last preceding year. It
would be punishing a person for no fault of
him.
As
observed
hereinabove,
the
increment can be withheld only by way of
punishment or he has not performed the
duty efficiently. Any interpretation which
would
lead
to
arbitrariness
and/or
unreasonableness should be avoided. If the
interpretation as suggested on behalf of
the appellants and the view [Principal
Accountant-General, A.P. v. C. Subba
Rao, 2005 SCC OnLine AP 47] taken by
the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court is accepted, in that case it
would
tantamount
to
denying
a
government
servant
the
annual
increment which he has earned for the
services he has rendered over a year
subject to his good behaviour. The
entitlement
to
receive
increment
therefore
crystallises
when
the
government servant completes requisite
length of service with good conduct and
becomes payable on the succeeding day.
892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 21. In the present case the word
"accrue" should be understood liberally and
would mean payable on the succeeding
day. Any contrary view would lead to
arbitrariness and unreasonableness and
denying a government servant legitimate
one annual increment though he is entitled
to for rendering the services over a year
with good behaviour and efficiently and
therefore, such a narrow interpretation
should be avoided.

 22.
We
are
in
complete
agreement with the view taken by the
Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal
[P.
Ayyamperumalv.
Central
Administrative Tribunal, 2017 SCC OnLine
Mad 37963] ; the Delhi High Court in
Gopal Singh [Gopal Singh v. Union of
India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2640] ; the
Allahabad High Court in Nand Vijay Singh
[Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India, 2021
SCC OnLine All 1090] ; the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Yogendra Singh
Bhadauria [Yogendra Singh Bhadauria v.
State of M.P., 2020 SCC OnLine MP 4654]
; the Orissa High Court in Arun Kumar
Biswal [Arun Kumar Biswal v. State of
Odisha, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 2368] ; and
the Gujarat High Court in Takhatsinh
Udesinh Songara [State of Gujarat v.
Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara, 2022 SCC
OnLine Guj 2522] . We do not approve the
contrary view taken by the Full Bench of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Principal
Accountant-General,
A.P.
[Principal
Accountant-General, A.P. v. C. Subba Rao,
2005 SCC OnLine AP 47] and the
decisions of the Kerala High Court in
Union of India v. Pavithran K. [Union of
India v. Pavithran K., 2022 SCC OnLine
Ker 5922] and the Himachal Pradesh High
Court in Hari Prakash v. State of H.P.
[Hari Prakash v. State of H.P., 2020 SCC
OnLine HP 2362]
8.
C.P.
Mundinamani
was,
therefore, unequivocal in its answer. The
annual increment earned by a government
employee during the previous year could
not be denied to him for the purpose of
determining his pensionary benefits, merely
because he was not in service on the day
the increment actually fell due, that is, if he
had retired a day before it fell due, though
completing one full year of service,
otherwise entitling him to increment. The
increment had to be notionally granted
and its benefit extended for the purpose
of determining the employee's post-retiral
benefits. But, it seems that after the
judgment in C.P. Mundinamani, Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4722 of 2021,
Union of India and another v. M.
Siddaraj came up before the Court,
where their Lordships opined that that
issue was the same as that in C.P.
Mundinamani.
Their
Lordships,
therefore, after granting leave, disposed
of the civil appeals in terms of the
judgment in C.P. Mundinamani. This
should have given a quietus to the issue.
But, it was not to be.

9. This Court finds the stand of
the Director General taken in the
personal affidavit to be utterly illegal, in
fact, contumacious, in one part of it. The
stand, though carried in a long-winded
pleading, must be set out for every word
of it. It reads :

 7. That, after the pronouncement
of judgments in the aforesaid SLPs, the
policy regarding grant of such benefits was
required to be promulgated by DOP&T as
the nodal Ministry for issuance of policy
instructions on the subject. Such policy will
be
applicable
to
all
the
Ministries/Departments under the aegis of
Govt. of India.
3 All. R.K. Prasad & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
893
 8. That, Security Directorate
headed by Director General/RPF is one of
the Directorates of Ministry of Railways.
As per the existing provisions, the Pay
Commission
Directorate
and
Finance
Directorate of Ministry of Railways are
dealing with the matters of pension related
issues of a retired railway employee
subsequent to the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
matter of SLP (C) no. 6185/2020 dated
11.04.2020.
Further,
the
Security
Directorate of Railway Board has not
received any directions from any of these
directorates (Pay Commission Directorate
& Finance Directorate). Hence, Director
General/RPF is not in position to extend the
benefits of one notional increment to the
petitioners who retired on 30th of June as
per the judgment.

 9. Further, keeping in view of the
fact that there are no specific policy
guidelines on the issue of grant of
increment due on 1st of July or 1st of
January, as the case may be, notionally on
the date of retirement i.e. 30th June and
31st December in FR SR. It is beyond the
domain of Ministry of Railways, under
Govt. of India (Transaction of Business)
Rules, 1961 to take any unilateral decision
to extend the benefit of notional increment
to all similarly placed pensioners. In order
to further elucidate, it is stated that in terms
of Para-4 of the aforesaid rules regarding
'Inter-Departmental
Consultations
subpara-2 thereof stipulated as under;

 "(2) Unless the case is fully
covered by powers to sanction expenditure
or to appropriate or re-appropriate funds,
conferred by any general or special orders
made by the Ministry of Finance, no
department shall, without the previous
concurrence of the Ministry of Finance,
issue any orders which may-

 (a) Involve any abandonment of
revenue or involve any expenditure for
which no provision has been made in the
appropriation act,

 (b) Involve any grant of land or
assignment of revenue or concession,
grant, lease or license of mineral of forest
rights or a right to water power or any
easement or privilege in respect of such
concession,

 (c) Relate to the number or grade
of posts, or to the strength of a service, or
to the pay or allowances of Government
servants or to any other Conditions of
their
service
having
financial
implications; or

 (d) Otherwise have a financial
bearing whether involving expenditure not,
Provided that no orders of the nature
specified in clause (c) shall be issued in
respect of the Ministry of Finance without
the
previous
concurrence
of
the
Department of Personnel and Training. "In
this connection Govt. of India (Transaction
of Business) Rules, 1961 dated 14.01.1961
is being filed herewith for kind perusal of
this
Hon'ble
court
and
marked
as
ANNEXURE NO. PA-4 to this Affidavit.

 10.
That,
considering
the
provisions contained in sub-para 2 (c)
above and the huge ramifications &
financial implications involved on granting
the benefit of notional increment to
similarly placed pensioners across all
Indian Railways, the matter had been
referred to the nodal department viz.
DOP&T in conformity of the provisions of
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"The Government of India (Transaction of
Business) Rules, 1961'

 11. That, pursuant to above,
DOP&T vide their O.M. dated 14.06.2023
had apprised Ministry of Railways as
under:

 "The matter relating to grant of
national increment to those Govt servants
who superannuated on 30th June or 31st
December is presently under examination
in
consultation
with
the
Deptt.
of
Expenditure in light of orders pronounced
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No. 2471 of 2023 arising out of SLP (C)
No. 6185 of 2020 (The Director (Admn.
and
HR)
KPTCL
&Ors
Vs
CP.
Mundinamani&Ors) and SLP (C) No.
4722/2021 Union of India &Ors Vs M.
Siddaraj). Further action, as may be
required will be taken on completion of the
consultation process. "In this connection
the letter issued by the Govt. of India
Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance and
Pensions DOP&T dated 14.06.2023 is
being filed herewith for kind perusal of this
Hon'ble court and marked as ANNEXURE
NO. PA-5 to this Affidavit.

 12. That based on the above
clarification
of
DOP&T,
necessary
instructions were issued to all Zonal
Railways/ PUs vide Board's letter dated
20.06.2023
to
file
a
Miscellaneous
Application before the respective Courts/
Tribunals seeking further time to comply
with their orders granting the benefit of
notional increment. Meanwhile, Indian
Railways
being
one
of
the
largest
organizations, wherein, around 1.5 lakhs of
retired employees/ pensioners will be the
beneficiaries of notional increment and
among which thousands had approached
various courts of law seeking the benefit of
notional increment. These cases were
decided in favour of the petitioners duly
granting the benefit of notional increment.
In this connection Ministry of Railways has
issued the letters regarding court cases of
notional increment filed by the retired
employes
are
being
filed
herewith
collectively for kind perusal of this Hon'ble
court and marked as ANNEXURE NO.
PA-6to this Affidavit.

 13. That, as per practice in vogue,
when an order having huge financial
implications is to be implemented, the same
is referred to Board's ANA office by the
concerned Zonal Railway which in turn
needs Expiryohcurrence/approval from the
nodal department i.e. DOP&T and 'is
referred to DOP&T by Ministry of
Railways.
Considering
the
ramifications/implications
involved;
the
matter is further consulted by DOP&T with
the Ministry of Finance and Sr. Law
Officers of the Govt. of India which indeed
takes a considerable time. A copy of
communication received in this regard is
enclosed as ANNEXURE NO. PA-7 to
this affidavit.

 14. That, on dismissal of SLP (C)
No. 4722/2021 (Union of India & Ors. Vs.
M. Siddaraj), a large number of cases were
allowed by various judicial forums at the
admission stage itself. The huge volume of
cases
caused
practical
problems
in
implementation of orders as each case
needs to be examined and cross verified to
ensure the eligibility. In certain cases, the
applicants preferred contempt petitions
immediately on expiry of the time period
granted by the respective courts for
implementation of orders.

 15. That, owing to unforeseen
delay in implementation of orders, in
3 All. R.K. Prasad & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
895
certain cases. Contempt petitions were also
filed by the petitioners on the grounds of
non-compliance of orders. Accordingly,
DOP&T was again requested to advise
further course of action to be adopted in the
matter. Pursuant to which, DOP&T vide
had advised this Ministry to take an
administrative
decision
regarding
compliance of orders pronounced by
various courts of law in contempt cases
taking due Rognizance of the advice of
Department of Legal Affairs.

 16. That, in view of the above
advice of the nodal department i.e. DOP&T
& in order to avoid any delay in decision
making process and also with due respect
to the judicial orders pronounced by
various courts of law and to ensure that the
same are complied expeditiously in a time
bound manner, it was decided to grant the
benefit
of
notional
increment
instantaneously and accordingly, powers
were delegated to all Zonal Railways/PUs
to take immediate necessary action in such
contempt
cases
to
ensure
timely
compliance of orders pronounced by
various courts of law in letter & spirit vide
Board's
letter
dated
09.02.2024
and
examine and refer to Railway Board if
required.

 17. That, during implementation
of orders pronounced by various courts of
law in contempt cases, certain procedural
challenges were being faced by the
Railways
like
cut-off
date
of
implementation of orders, extant of benefit
to be extended to the petitioners etc. The
same was brought to the notice of DOP&T,
who in turn, had advised Ministry of
Railways to explore the possibility of filing
a clarificatory petition before the Apex
Court seeking clarifications on the issue.
Accordingly, the matter was placed before
Ld. Attorney General of India who had
opined to file a Misc. Application before
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
seeking
clarification on the implementation of
judgements dated 19.04.2023 in SLP (C)
No. 4722/2021 (Union of *India & Ors. Vs
M.
Siddaraj).
Accordingly,
a
Misc.
Application has been filed before the
Hon'ble
Apex
Court
vide
Dy.
No.
2400/2024, seeking clarification on various
important aspects and also requested the
Apex
Court
to
grant
stay
on
the
implementation of the impugned judgement
till the clarification on the issues raised in
the clarificatory petition is given by the
Hon'ble Apex Court keeping in view the
huge ramification and maintain uniformity,
which pending for adjudication. In this
connection a copy of the Misc. clarification
application filed by the Union of India is
being filed herewith for kind perusal of this
Hon'ble court and marked as ANNEXURE
NO. PA-8 to this Affidavit.

 18. That, subsequently, DOP&T
has also filed an Intervention Application
before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid Clarificatory Petition primarily
on the grounds that DOP&T being the
nodal department could not place their
arguments before the Hon'ble Apex Court
while the issue of notional increment was
decided vide orders dated 11.04.2023 &
19.05.2023 Further, they have vital stake in
the outcome of the above mentioned
Clarificatory Petition and hence Hon'ble
Apex Court ought to hear them in the
interest of justice while deciding the
Clarificatory Petition. DOP&T in the said
Intervention Application has requested to
grant stay on the implementation of the
impugned judgement till such time the
petition before the Hon'bleApex Court is
decided as non grant of stay will result in
pronouncing DANA 19718 of favorable
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgments by subordinate courts in a
continuous manner thereby making the
Intervention Application infructuous. The
said Intervention Application (IA) filed by
the nodal department i.e. DOP&T is still
pending before Hon'ble Apex Court for
adjudication. In this connection, a copy of
Intervention Application before Hon'ble
Supreme Court filed by the DOP&T in the
aforesaid Clarificatory Petition is being
filed herewith for kind perusal of this
Hon'ble court and marked as ANNEXURE
NO. PA-9 to this Affidavit.

 19. That, during the hearing of
the aforesaid clarificatory petition on
22.07.2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court made
the following observations:

 "In the meantime, learned counsel
for the Union of India shall examine as to
whether the Union of India needs to file an
application in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023,
titled "The Director (Admn. And HR)
KPTCL & Ors. VC P. Mundinamani &
Ors", which was disposed of vide judgment
dated
11.04.2023
Respondents
are
permitted to file additional documents. "In
this connection the order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme court on 22.07.2024 is
being filed herewith for kind perusal of this
Hon'ble court and marked as ANNEXURE
NO. PA-10 to this Affidavit.

 20. That, vide aforesaid orders,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the
nodal department i.e. DOP&T to file
additional
documents
in
the
matter.
Accordingly DOP&T has filed a Review
Petition vide Dy. No. before Hon'ble
Supreme Court seeking review of their
19718der dated 11.04.2023 pronounced in
Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 arising out
of SLP (C) No. 6185 of 2020 (The Director
(Admn. and HR) KPTCL &Ors Vs C. P.
Mundinamani & Ors). As such, the issue of
notional increment has not yet attained
finality
and
the
judicial
procedures
involved in the matter to finalize the issue
of grant of benefit of notional increment are
still underway for final adjudication by
Hon'ble Apex Court.

 21. That, it is also humbly
submitted that in order to ascertain the
eligibility & applicability of notional
increment to a retired employee/pensioner,
a close examination of the credentials of
the applicant with regard to eligibility of
increment needs to be done in order to
ensure that no undue financial benefit is
extended inadvertently. This procedure
takes time as all the service particulars/pay
progression/career progression/ financial
upgradation/ increments granted to the
employees in the entire service needs to be
cross-checked thoroughly which is a time
consuming
procedure.
It
is
humbly
submitted that in this context only it has
been clarified by Railway Board to all the
field units to refer such orders other than
contempt cases to Railway Board.

 22. That, in order to stress upon
the intricacies involved in this important
task, it is humbly submitted that in few
cases pertaining to various Railways viz.
Northern Railway tin O.A. No. 3071/2023
(Shri Naresh ARY Kumar Gupta Vs UOI &
Ors.)) & North Central Railway (in C.P No
19718 28/2024 filed by Shri Suresh
Narayan
Vyas
arising
out
of
O.A.
No.330/1085/2023 (Shri Vijay Kumar
Verma & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.) wherein the
Hon'ble Tribunals had directed to grant the
benefit of notional increment to these
petitioners. However, on scrutiny of their
service particulars, it was found that both
were not eligible for grant of benefit of
notional increment owing to various
3 All. R.K. Prasad & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
897
reasons and also that they had not
completed 12 months of service since the
date of accrual of last annual increment
which
happens
to
be
the
main
principle/primary condition to be fulfilled
for being eligible for grant of notional
increment as decided by the Hon'ble Apex
Court vide their judgement dated 11.04
2023. Accordingly, the concerned Railways
were advised not to grant the benefit of
notional increment and challenge the orders
pronounced by respective Tribunals before
High Court. In this connection Copies of
correspondence
done
with
Northern
Railway & North Central Railway are
being filed herewith collectively and
marked as ANNEXURE P.A-11 to this
affidavit.

 23. That, it is re-iterated that the
issue of notional increment has not yet
attained finality and is still sub-judice/
pending for adjudication before Hon'ble
Supreme Court, as such, general policy
guidelines on the issue of notional
increment has not yet been promulgated
by the nodal department i.e. DOP&T as
& when the general policy decision in the
matter
is
received
from
DOP&T
consequent
to
adjudication
of
AR
aforesaid
Clarificatory
Petition/
Intervention
Application/
Review
Petition,
the
same
would be
duly
implemented
on
Indian
Railways
extending
the
benefit
of
notional
increment
to
all
similarly
situated
pensioners.

 24. That, it may be observed from
the submissions made in aforesaid paras
that the issue of notional increment is still
sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court for adjudication and has not yet
attained finality. As such, it is most humbly
and graciously prayed that:
 (i) The aforesaid positions of
Ministry of Railways may kindly be
considered in compliance of order dated
31.08.2024 passed by this Hon'ble High
Court of Allahabad in the instant W.P. No.
13305/2024 till the aforesaid Review
Petition and Intervention Application filed
by the nodal department viz. DOP&T are
adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and the issue of notional increment attains
finality.

 (ii)
The
instant
W.P.
No.
13305/2024 may be adjourned sine die and
a final decision thereon may only be taken
after the aforesaid Review Petition and
Intervention Application filed by the nodal
department viz. DOP&T are adjudicated by
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the issue of
notional increment attains finality.

 (emphasis by Court)

10.