New Policy with post-retirement cut-off date cannot be applied retrospectively to grant financial benefits.

The petitioner, born on July 1, 1954, was superannuated from service on June 30, 2014, upon completing 60 years of age

Subsequently, the State Government issued a policy dated September 30, 2014, which granted the benefit of the "Third Time Scale Pay" to employees completing 30 years of service, effective from July 1, 2014

The petitioner filed a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order denying him this benefit and a mandamus to extend said benefit, arguing that as his birth date was July 1, he should have retired on July 1, 2014, thereby qualifying for the scheme

1. Whether an employee born on the first day of a month completes the age of superannuation on the last day of the preceding month or on the date of birth itself

2. Whether the policy dated September 30, 2014, regarding the Third Time Scale Pay, can be applied retrospectively to employees who retired prior to its effective date of July 1, 2014

The Court applied the principle that a year (365 days) is completed one day prior to the anniversary of the date of birth

Regarding statutory interpretation, the court relied on the cardinal principle that statutes/policies are prima facie prospective unless expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective (S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 740)

It further adhered to the Division Bench ruling in W.A. No. 299 of 2025, which held that the Third Time Pay Scale under the circular dated September 30, 2014, applies only to those in service on or after July 1, 2014

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that he completed 60 years on July 1, 2014, clarifying that the age of 60 was legally attained on June 30, 2014

Consequently, the petitioner was correctly retired on June 30, 2014. Analyzing the policy, the Court noted that the cut-off date for eligibility was July 1, 2014, and the policy was promulgated on September 30, 2014

Since the petitioner had already exited service a day before the cut-off date, the Court reasoned—citing S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills—that the policy cannot impair existing obligations or be stretched retrospectively without express intent

Following the Division Bench's interpretation of the same circular, the Court found that the benefit is strictly for those completing 30 years as of or after the cut-off date

The Court concluded that the policy is prospective and cannot be applied to past retirements

The writ petition was dismissed as being without merit