Entitlement to Notional Annual Increment for Pensionary Benefits Accrued upon Superannuation on 30th June.

The petitioner, Vishnu Prasad, was an employee under the Divisional Railway Manager who superannuated from service on 30.06.2024

He filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to grant him one annual increment that became due on 01.07.2024, the day immediately following his retirement

The petitioner further sought consequential benefits including pay fixation, pension revisions, arrears, and interest at 12%

The respondents contended that the matter is strictly governed by recent Supreme Court precedents regarding the cut-off dates for such benefits

1. Whether a retired employee is entitled to an annual increment that falls due on the day following their superannuation

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the arrears of such increment and pensionary benefits

The court applied the principles established by the Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. M. Siddaraj (Misc. Application Diary No. 2400/2024 in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023), which stipulated that while the entitlement to one increment for those retiring on June 30th is recognized, the financial benefits (pension increase) are payable only from 01.05.2023 for third parties, and arrears for those filing petitions are limited to three years prior to the date of filing

Furthermore, the court relied on Madhya Pradesh Purv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. v. Vidyut Mandal Pension Samaj & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 16679/2025), which clarified that interest is not to be awarded on these specific arrears

The High Court examined the timeline of the petitioner’s retirement (30.06.2024) and the due date of the increment (01.07.2024)

It noted that the legal entitlement to such an increment is no longer res integra following the Supreme Court's ruling in M. Siddaraj.

the court observed that the Supreme Court had issued specific restrictive directions regarding the period from which the enhanced pension is payable to avoid excessive retrospective financial burdens

Regarding the claim for 12% interest, the court reasoned that since the Supreme Court in Vidyut Mandal Pension Samaj specifically set aside High Court orders granting interest on such arrears, the petitioner’s claim for interest must be denied to maintain uniformity with the apex court's mandate

The court effectively granted the inclusion of the increment for pension calculation but denied any interest on the arrears, directing the respondents to process the benefits in accordance with the cited Supreme Court guidelines