A one-time increment cannot be denied when delayed joining results from departmental delay in relieving.

The Petitioner was appointed to the post of ASI/Clerk with effect from 15 June 1996 while posted at 34 Battalion.

His posting order required implementation by 20 June 1996, but he was relieved only on 10 July 1996 and joined his new post on 15 July 1996.

The Ministry of Finance’s Office Memorandum dated 19 March 2012 provided a one-time increment on 1 January 2006 in the pre-revised pay scale for eligible Central Government employees whose annual increment fell between February and June 2006, followed by the next increment on 1 July 2006 under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

The Petitioner was denied that benefit because he assumed charge at his new posting in July.

After a representation in 2020, he filed this writ petition in 2025.

He relied on the Division Bench decision in Vijayan V.V. v. Union of India & Ors.; the Respondents objected on delay and laches and disputed the applicability of that decision.

1. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to the one-time increment under the Ministry of Finance’s Office Memorandum dated 19 March 2012, notwithstanding his July 1996 joining date, when the delay in joining resulted from late relieving by the Respondents.

2. Whether the writ petition was barred by delay and laches, given the time elapsed since the Petitioner’s promotion and delayed relieving.

3. Whether the relief in Vijayan V.V. could be extended to the Petitioner despite the Respondents’ contention that the judgment was not in rem.

The Ministry of Finance’s Office Memorandum dated 19 March 2012 provided a one-time increment on 1 January 2006 in the pre-revised pay scale to eligible Central Government employees whose annual increment was due between February and June 2006; the next increment was to be granted on 1 July 2006 under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

In Vijayan V.V. v. Union of India & Ors., the Delhi High Court held that an employee should not lose the benefit because the employer’s delay in issuing a relieving order caused the employee to join after the relevant deadline; the employee’s notional joining date could be treated as on or before that deadline.

Under Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, a belated claim may be considered where it concerns a continuing wrong such as pay refixation, subject to the applicable principles on delay and third-party rights.

The Court found that the Petitioner’s appointment order required implementation by 20 June 1996 and that his later joining was attributable to the Respondents’ failure to relieve him in time, not to any omission on his part.

Applying Vijayan V.V., the Court held that the Petitioner’s notional joining date should be treated as falling within the order’s implementation deadline, so that administrative delay would not deprive him of the incrementary benefit.

The delay objection failed because the claim concerned continuing pay fixation and because similarly placed employees, including a batchmate whose petition had been entertained and relief granted, had received comparable treatment.

The Court also held that the Vijayan V.V. principle applied to similarly situated employees even though that judgment was not in rem.

It directed the Respondents to grant the Petitioner one extra increment by treating his notional date of joining as ASI/Clerk as on or before the last date specified in the original posting order dated 21 May 1996, and to refix his pay accordingly.

The resulting arrears were to be paid within twelve weeks; failing that, they would carry interest at 6% per annum until payment.