Facts
The applicant, a retired Technical Operator from the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), retired from service on 30.06.2021
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1He filed the present Original Application (O.A.) seeking the grant of one notional increment effective from the date following his retirement.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1The applicant had previously submitted a representation on 17.10.2024 and a reminder on 28.11.2025 to the respondents, which remained unaddressed
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1The applicant contended that the legal entitlement to such an increment is settled law
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to one notional increment on the date following his retirement after having completed one full year of service
Source reference: p. 2, para. 22. Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicant’s pending representations in a time-bound manner in light of settled judicial precedents
Source reference: p. 2, para. 4-6Law Applied
The court primarily relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj, which conclusively held that an employee who completes one year of service on the date of retirement is entitled to one notional increment w.e.f. the next date of retirement
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2The Tribunal further referenced the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum (OM) dated 20.05.2025, which provides administrative instructions for granting notional increments to eligible retirees
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2; p. 3, para. 5Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the legal question regarding notional increments is no longer res integra (an undecided point of law) due to the Apex Court’s ruling in M. Siddaraj and the subsequent DoPT instructions
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1-2While the respondents initially requested time to file a counter-reply, the applicant’s counsel expressed satisfaction if the matter were resolved via a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the pending representations
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3-4The Tribunal noted that the respondents’ counsel raised no objection to this approach
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the administrative authorities must apply the settled law and the relevant DoPT OM to the facts of the applicant's case to resolve his grievance at the departmental level
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5-6Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. at the admission stage without expressing an opinion on the merits of the claim
It directed the respondents to decide the applicant's representations dated 17.10.2024 and 28.11.2025 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6This decision must be made in light of the judgment in M. Siddaraj and the DoPT OM dated 20.05.2025
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5-6No costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 4, para. 8Original Court PDF
Raj Kishore RathorevsURBAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in