Employees retiring a day before increment falls due are entitled to notional increment for pensionary benefits.

The applicant, Suresh Prasad, retired as a REFG MECH HS-II from the Military Engineer Services on 30.06.2018 upon reaching the age of superannuation

An annual increment fell due on 01.07.2018, the day immediately following his retirement.

The respondents denied this increment on the grounds that the applicant was not in service on the date it became due

The applicant contended that having completed a full year of qualifying service with satisfactory conduct, the denial was arbitrary and contrary to established law

He filed a representation (Annexure A-2) which remained undecided, leading to the filing of this Original Application on 09.03.2026

1. Whether a government employee retiring on 30th June is entitled to a notional increment falling due on 1st July for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to arrears of pension based on such notional increment in light of the restrictive timelines set by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal applied the principle established in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. v. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. (2023), which held that the entitlement to an increment is earned for service rendered in the preceding year, even if the employee retires a day before the formal due date

It further relied on the Supreme Court's clarifications in Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj (2025), which finalized the dates of financial applicability: (a) for third parties, enhanced pension is payable from 01.05.2023; and (b) for those who approached the court, arrears are restricted to three years prior to the filing of the application

Finally, the court noted the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) Office Memorandum dated 14.10.2024, which mandated departments to comply with these judicial pronouncements for pension calculation

The Tribunal observed that the legal issue regarding notional increments is no longer res integra as it has been conclusively settled by the Apex Court

The court reasoned that since the applicant completed the requisite qualifying service for the increment period (01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018), the benefit cannot be denied merely because he was not on the rolls on the first day of the succeeding month

The Tribunal integrated the specific directions from M. Siddaraj, noting that while the right to the increment is established, the actual financial payout (arrears) must be governed by the specific clauses (a) through (d) of the Supreme Court's order dated 20.02.2025

By referencing the DoP&T OM of 14.10.2024, the Tribunal emphasized that the increment is intended solely for pension calculation and not for other retirement benefits like gratuity or leave encashment

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's grievance specifically in light of the judgments in C.P. Mundinamani and M. Siddaraj, as well as the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 14.10.2024

The respondents are ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order regarding the re-fixation of the applicant's pension within four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order

No order was made as to costs