Facts
The applicant retired from service on December 31, 2018
Source reference: p. 2He completed a full year of regular service from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018, just prior to his retirement
Source reference: p. 2He approached the Tribunal seeking the grant of one notional increment for that period to be factored into his pensionary benefits
Source reference: p. 2The applicant had previously filed a representation with the respondents on January 13, 2025, which remained pending at the time of the filing of the Original Application (OA)
Source reference: p. 2During the proceedings, the applicant sought a limited direction for the respondents to dispose of this representation in a time-bound manner
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant's pending representation regarding the grant of a notional increment for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits in light of prevailing executive instructions and judicial precedents?
Source reference: p. 3 / para. 4, 6Law Applied
DoPT OM No. 19/116/2024-Pers.Pol. (Pay) (Pt) dated 20.05.2025 and the Office Order dated 23.09.2025, which govern the "Grant of notional increment on 1st July/1st January to the employees who retired from Central Government service on 30th June/31st December"
Source reference: p. 2, 3Legal principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.A. No. 2400/2024 in CA No. 2471/2023 (Ministry of Railways), decided on February 20, 2025, regarding entitlement to increments earned on the final day of service
Source reference: p. 2Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s claim was based on having completed a full year of service immediately preceding his retirement date
Source reference: p. 2Rather than adjudicating the merits of the entitlement, the Tribunal focused on the procedural remedy of Mandamus, noting that the applicant had already submitted a representation dated January 13, 2025
Source reference: p. 2, 3With the consent of both parties, the Tribunal found it appropriate to compel the administrative authority (MCD) to exercise its decision-making power
Source reference: p. 3The court emphasized that the respondents must apply the specific criteria laid down in the cited DoPT OMs and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Ministry of Railways case to the applicant's facts to determine his eligibility for the revised pensionary benefits
Source reference: p. 3, 4Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the OA at the admission stage
It directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's representation dated January 13, 2025, by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the law and relevant OMs within six weeks of receiving the order
Source reference: para. 6, 7The Tribunal explicitly clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the applicant's claim
Source reference: para. 9No order as to costs was made
Source reference: para. 10Original Court PDF
Suresh Chand SolankivsMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in