Respondents directed to decide the retirement-increment claim by a reasoned order within eight weeks.

The applicant, Ghulam Muhammad Parray, a former Senior Assistant, superannuated from service on 30 June 2016, having completed the qualifying service necessary for earning the annual increment that fell due on 1 July 2016. His pension was thereafter made operative from 1 July 2016. He claimed that the increment was attributable to the service rendered during the preceding year and should therefore be considered for fixation of his pension and other retiral benefits.

The applicant asserted that he had made repeated representations to the respondents seeking grant of the increment and consequential revision of his pensionary benefits, but no effective decision was taken.

Relying upon Director (Administration and HR), KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani, Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023, decided on 11 April 2023, and Yasmeen Kousar v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, T.A./61/563/2025, he sought grant of the increment, revision of retiral benefits, and payment of consequential arrears.

During the hearing, the applicant agreed that the Original Application could be treated as a representation. The respondents stated that they had no objection to such disposal, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

1. Whether the applicant’s claim for the annual increment due on 1 July 2016, despite his retirement on 30 June 2016, was required to be considered in light of the applicable service law and the decision in Director (Administration and HR), KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani.

2. Whether the Original Application should be treated as a representation and the respondents directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the applicant’s claim for grant of the increment and consequential revision of pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal relied upon the legal principles concerning entitlement to an annual increment upon completion of the requisite qualifying service, particularly the principles considered by the Supreme Court in Director (Administration and HR), KPTCL & Others v. C.P. Mundinamani & Others, Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023, decided on 11 April 2023.

It also directed consideration of the observations of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, in Yasmeen Kousar v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, T.A./61/563/2025.

The applicable service rules, pensionary rules, eligibility conditions, and other governing legal requirements were to be considered by the competent authority; however, the Tribunal did not finally determine the applicant’s substantive entitlement.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant asserted completion of the qualifying service for the increment before his retirement on 30 June 2016 and relied upon judicial precedents concerning increments falling due on 1 July after retirement on 30 June.

However, since both parties agreed that the matter could be addressed administratively in the first instance, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the merits. Instead, it directed the respondents to examine the applicant’s claim in light of Mundinamani, the decision in Yasmeen Kousar, the applicable law and rules, the applicant’s eligibility, and the documents annexed to the Original Application.

The direction was therefore procedural and supervisory, requiring a reasoned determination by the competent authority rather than granting the increment outright.

The respondents were directed to consider the applicant’s claim for the annual increment due on 1 July 2016 and the consequential revision of pensionary and retiral benefits, subject to his entitlement, eligibility, and the applicable rules and conditions.

A comprehensive, reasoned, speaking, and detailed order was required to be passed within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits and left all questions of fact and law open for consideration by the competent authority.

No order as to costs was made.