deep chand vs REVENUE

1

(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad

Original Application No. 1199 of 2026

th
This the 15 Day of October, 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash - VII, Member (J)
Deep Chand, aged about 65 years, Son of Late Banshi Lal, resident
of H No 265/41/B-5H, Ward No 6, Newada, Prayagraj. Retired from
the post of notice server from the office of Commissioner of Income
Tax (Headquarter), Prayagraj.
….Applicant
By Advocate: Jaswant Singh
Versus
1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, Government of India, North Block, New
Delhi.
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, 7A, Ashok Marg,
Lucknow (U.P.)
3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, 38 MG
Marg, Civil Lines, Prayagraj.
4. Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Board of Direct Taxes, of
office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, 38 MG
Marg, Civil Lines, Prayagraj.
… Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan
ORDER
Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents are present and
heard.
RITU RAJ
SINGH

2

2. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following main relief(s):-
“i). This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to
st
grant the applicant one notional increment for the period from 1
th
July, 2020 to 30 June, 2021 for purposes of pension and
pensionary benefits and accordingly re-fix his pension and
pensionary benefits and pay the arrears along with admissible
interest thereupon.
ii). Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of
the applicants.
iii) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the
applicant.”
3. Although the matter has been listed under the head of ‘Fresh
Admission’ the same is heard and decided today itself with the consent of
counsels appearing for both the parties.
4. It is submitted by the applicant’s counsel that the applicant has
retired on 30.06.2021. One increment falling due on the very next date i.e.
st
01 July of the relevant year was not granted to him. He also placed
reliance on catena of judgments pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
followed by Hon’ble High Court as well as various Tribunals and submitted
that the present case may also be decided by this Tribunal in the light of the
aforesaid judgments/orders. In this regard, the applicants’ counsel
submitted that applicant also preferred representation dated 26.03.2025
before the competent authority seeking redressal of his grievances but for
no avail. (Copie of the representation has been annexed with Annexure A-2
to the Compilation No II of the OA).
5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents submits that although
one Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2025 has been issued by the DoP&T,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India
to grant one notional increment to the retired employees who have retired
th st
on 30 June / 31 December, yet notional increment can only be allowed to
the applicant if he fulfils the requisite eligibility conditions as prescribed in
the aforesaid OM as well as the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex
Court.
RITU RAJ
SINGH

3

6. I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through
the records.
7. As far as the question of granting the notional increment is
concerned, the law on the point has already been settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors.
vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., reported in (2023) SCC online S.C. 401
(Civil Appeal No.(s) 2471/2023 decided on 11.04.2023). The Hon’ble
Supreme Court considered the divergent views of different Hon’ble High
Courts on the issue:-
“Whether an employee who has earned the annual increment is
entitled to the same despite the facts that he has retired on the very
next day of earning the increment?”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the matter and importance of
increment and observed that denying the benefit of annual increment
which he has already earned while rendering a specified period of
service with good conduct and efficiency in the last preceding year,
would be punishing a person for no fault. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
did not approve the contrary view taken by Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh
High Court and the view of Kerala and Himachal Pradesh, High Courts and
approved the view of Madras, Allahabad, M.P., Orissa, and Gujrat High
Courts. In para 6.7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“6.7 Similar view has also been expressed by different High Courts,
namely, the Gujarat High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the
Orissa High Court and the Madras 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 efficiently 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 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
RITU RAJ
SINGH

4

when the government servant completes requisite length of service with
good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day. 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. We are in complete
agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of
P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal
Singh (supra); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay
Singh (supra); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra
Singh Bhadauria (supra); the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR
Arun Kumar Biswal (supra); and the Gujarat High Court in the case of
Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra). We do not approve the contrary
view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the
case of Principal Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh (supra) and the
decisions of the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India Vs.
Pavithran (O.P.(CAT) No. 111/2020 decided on 22.11.2022) and the
Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Hari Prakash Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on
06.11.2020). ”
8. Thereafter, in Special Leave Petition (c) No. 4722/2021 “Union of
Indian and Others Vs. M. Siddaraj ” a Miscellaneous Application Diary
No. 2400/2024 was filed in which the Hon’ble Apex Court by taking into
consideration the date of applicability of the judgment dated 11.04.2023 in
Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023 in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors.
vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors . By an interim order dated 06.09.2024 has
considered the application of Union of India and observed as under:-
“(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of
third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into
account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced
pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid.
(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the
directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and
accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be
paid.
(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has not
attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is
entertained by the appellate court.
(d) In case any retired employee has filed any application for
intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 or any other writ
petition and a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension by
RITU RAJ
SINGH

5

including one increment will be payable from the month in which the application
for intervention/impleadment was filed.”
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Diary No. 2400 of 2024 (Union of
India & Anr. vs. M. Siddaraj) , on 20.02.2025, has once again considered
the matter and made the following observations:-
“ We are inclined to dispose of the present miscellaneous applications

directing that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the order dated 06.09.2024 will
be treated as final directions. We are, however, of the opinion that
Clause (d) of the order dated 06.09.2024 requires modification which
shall now read as under:-
“(d) In case any retired employee filed an application for
intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application before
the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court, the
enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable for
the period of three years prior to the month in which the application
for intervention/impleadment/ writ petition/ original application
was filed.”
Further, clause (d) will not apply to the retired government
employee who filed a writ petition/original application or an application for
intervention before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this
Court after the judgment in “Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj”, as in
such cases, clause (a) will apply.”
10. Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid view of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter which was filed on and after 01.05.2023
will be applicable for one notional increment as per para (a) of order dated
06.09.2024 of the aforesaid judgment. The benefit of enhanced pension, as
per the judgment and order dated 11.04.2023 in C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.
(supra), will be extended to third parties from the date of the judgment.
Subsequently, taking cognizance of the order dated 06.09.2024 of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Department of Personnel and Training vide
office memorandum dated 14.10.2024 has considered grant of one notional
increment, as stated in para-7, which is quoted herein below:-
“ 7. The matter has been examined in consultation with D/o
Expenditure and D/o Legal Affairs. It is advised that pursuance of the
Order dated 06.09.2024 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above,
st st
action may be taken to allow the increment on 1 July/1 January to the
Central Government employees who retired/are retiring a day before it
th st
became due i.e. on 30 June/ 31 December and have rendered the
requisite qualifying service as on the date of their superannuation with
satisfactory work and good conduct for calculating the pension
admissible to them. As specifically mentioned in the Orders of the
st
Hon’ble Supreme Court, grant of the notional increment on 1
st
January/1 July shall be reckoned only for the purpose of calculating the
RITU RAJ
SINGH

6

pension admissible and not for the purpose of calculation of other
pensionary benefits.”
Subsequently, by order dated 18.12.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has dismissed the Review Petition (C) Diary No. 36418/2024 in Civil
Appeal No. (S) 2471/2023 Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs.
C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. In the present case, the OA was filed on
07.07.2025 which is after 01.05.2023, therefore, it comes under the domain
of aforesaid decision.
Most recently, the Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India has issued
an Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2025 wherein laying down certain
conditions, the Union Government has clarified that notional increment is to
st st
be allowed on 01 July / 01 January who retired / are retiring a day before
th st
it became due i.e., on 30 June / 31 December and have rendered the
requisite qualifying service as on the date of their superannuation with
satisfactory work and good conduct for calculating the pension admissible
to them. For the sake of clarity, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid OM
is quoted herein below:
“6. The matter has been examined in consultation with D/o Expenditure
and D/o Legal Affairs. It is advised that in pursuance of the above
referred Order dated 20.02.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, action
may be taken to allow the increment on 1st July/ 1st January to the
Central Government employees who retired/are retiring a day before it
became due i.e. on 30th June /31st December and have rendered the
requisite qualifying service as on the date of their superannuation with
satisfactory work and good conduct for calculating the pension
admissible to them. As specifically mentioned in the orders of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, grant of the notional increment on 1st January/ 1st July
shall be reckoned only for the purpose of calculating the pension
admissible and not for the purpose of calculation of other pensionary
benefits.”

11. In view of the above discussions, OA No. 1199 of 2026 is allowed
and respondents are directed to grant one notional increment falling due on
st
the very next date i.e. 01 July of the relevant year to the applicant. The
respondents are further directed to issue the revised PPO in favour of the
applicant (after notional fixation of one increment) within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Needless to
RITU RAJ
SINGH

7

mention, the aforesaid benefit will be conferred upon the applicant subject
to him fulfilling all the requisite eligibility criteria as prescribed in the
Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2025 issued by the DoPT as has been
discussed above. No order as to costs.

(Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH