Notional increment for pensionary benefits is subject to temporal restrictions on arrears per Supreme Court directives.

The applicants, retired employees of the Department of Posts, sought the benefit of one notional increment for pensionary purposes, as they retired on 30th June (the day preceding the increment date).

On 30.06.2021, the Tribunal directed the respondents to extend the benefit of the judgment in Pravesh Chandra Gupta & Ors. vs. Union of India (O.A. No. 146/2020) to the applicants.

The respondents filed a compliance affidavit on 17.11.2025, stating they had issued revised Pension Payment Orders (PPOs) granting the notional increment.

The applicants contended that the order was not fully complied with because arrears of pensionary benefits had not been paid.

The matter was considered in light of intervening clarification orders passed by the Supreme Court regarding the retrospective applicability of such benefits.

1. Whether the respondents' failure to pay full arrears constituted a willful disobedience of the Tribunal's order dated 30.06.2021

2. Whether the compliance by the respondents was sufficient in view of the Supreme Court’s directions in Diary No. 2400/2024 regarding the date of applicability of notional increments for third parties

The Tribunal applied Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which governs contempt proceedings.

It relied heavily on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023), which recognized the right to a notional increment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal applied the clarifying directions from the Supreme Court’s orders in Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj and Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400/2024 (dated 06.09.2024 and 20.02.2025), which restricted the payment of arrears for third parties and limited the retrospective effect of the judgment to three years prior to the filing of the application, subject to specific cut-off dates.

The Tribunal examined the extent of compliance by the respondents against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s evolving directives on notional increments.

The respondents argued that they had issued revised PPOs in accordance with the interim and final orders of the Apex Court.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court, in its order dated 20.02.2025, had clarified that for third parties (those not party to the original Mundinamani litigation), the enhanced pension is generally payable from 01.05.2023, and arrears prior to 30.04.2023 are not to be paid unless the claimant had filed a petition before a specific legal milestone.

The Tribunal reasoned that since the respondents had already issued the revised PPO granting the notional increment, they had "substantially complied" with the original direction of the Tribunal as modified by the Supreme Court's restrictive guidelines on arrears.

Consequently, the lack of full arrears did not amount to contempt because the respondents were following the Supreme Court's specific mandate regarding the date of applicability.

It ruled that in light of the Supreme Court’s directions in Diary No. 2400/2024, the issuance of the revised PPO satisfied the requirements of the law.

The Contempt Petition was accordingly consigned to record, and the notices issued to the respondents were discharged.

All associated Miscellaneous Applications were also disposed of.