For pensionary benefits, employees born on the first retire from that date.

The applicant, a Railway Technician born on 1 January 1956, was relieved on the afternoon of 31 December 2015 upon reaching superannuation.

His pension was revised with effect from 1 January 2016 under the Seventh Central Pay Commission (7th CPC), but the respondents rejected his request to treat him as having retired on that date for determining his pensionary benefits.

He challenged that rejection before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, relying on S. Banerjee v. Union of India and the Principal Bench’s decision in G.C. Yadav v. Union of India.

1. Whether an employee born on the first day of a month, but formally relieved on the preceding day under Railway instructions, should be treated as having retired on the first day of the month for determining pensionary benefits under the 7th CPC.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to consequential refixation of pension and other pensionary or retiral benefits despite the respondents’ having already revised his pension with effect from 1 January 2016.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the procedural basis for an application before the Tribunal.

Paragraph 4 of Railway Board Master Circular No. 35 provides that an employee whose date of birth falls on the first day of a month retires on the afternoon of the preceding day.

In S. Banerjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 295, the Supreme Court held that an employee retiring with effect from the first day of a month is treated as having retired on that date for determining eligibility for pensionary benefits, notwithstanding that the employee receives no salary for that day.

The Tribunal also relied on G.C. Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 571/2017, which applied S. Banerjee to an employee with the same date of birth and retirement circumstances and directed fixation of retiral benefits under the 7th CPC.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was properly relieved on 31 December 2015 under Master Circular No. 35, but held that the date of physical relief did not determine the date relevant to pensionary entitlement.

Applying S. Banerjee, and following G.C. Yadav on materially similar facts, it concluded that the applicant must be treated as having retired with effect from 1 January 2016 for determining his pensionary benefits.

The respondents’ prior revision of pension from that date did not resolve the dispute over his treatment as a 1 January 2016 retiree and consequential fixation of benefits.

The Tribunal expressly excluded any entitlement to salary or other service benefits for that day.

It directed the respondents to reconsider and refix the applicant’s pension and other pensionary or retiral benefits by treating him as having retired with effect from 1 January 2016, under the applicable 7th CPC provisions; consequential arrears are to be paid after adjustment of sums already paid.

The exercise must be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No salary or other service benefits are payable for 1 January 2016, and there was no order as to costs.