Retirement before notification does not defeat accrued entitlement to notional increments and revised retiral benefits.

The petitioner was appointed as a daily-wage Conductor on 14 March 1983 and regularised with effect from 9 December 1983.

He retired on superannuation on 30 June 2015.

HRTC issued a Notification dated 10 September 2015 granting two additional increments to Conductors who had completed 20 years of continuous service without promotion.

Clause IV provided notional benefit from the date of completion of 20 years and actual benefit with effect from 1 July 2015.

The petitioner, who completed 20 years of regular service on 8 December 2003, sought the benefit.

HRTC rejected his claim on 21 September 2016 on the ground that he had retired before issuance of the Notification.

He challenged the rejection before the State Administrative Tribunal; the proceedings were subsequently transferred to the High Court as CWPOA No. 3351 of 2020.

During hearing, the petitioner withdrew his claim for a proficiency increment after 32 years of service and confined the petition to the two additional increments.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to two additional increments upon completion of 20 years’ service as a Conductor under HRTC’s Notification dated 10 September 2015, notwithstanding his retirement on 30 June 2015, before issuance of the Notification.

2. Whether any placement or re-designation of the petitioner as Conductor-Adda Incharge could be treated as a promotion disentitling him from the benefit.

3. Whether the increments were required to be reckoned for revision of the petitioner’s retiral benefits.

The Court applied HRTC’s Notification dated 10 September 2015, issued under Section 13 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950.

Clauses I and IV entitled Conductors who had completed 20 years of continuous service without promotion to two additional increments, with notional effect from the date of completion of 20 years and actual effect from 1 July 2015 for those covered by Clause IV.

The Court further applied the principle that an acquired entitlement under a governing scheme cannot be denied on an extraneous ground not contained in that scheme.

It relied on Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Kumar, CWP No. 4167 of 2019, decided on 29 November 2021, which held that re-designation as Conductor-Adda Incharge did not amount to promotion and could not defeat entitlement to the additional increments.

The Court held that the petitioner had completed 20 years of regular service as a Conductor on 8 December 2003, well before the 1 July 2015 cut-off date, and the record did not show that he had received any promotion during the relevant period.

Clause IV expressly covered Conductors who had already completed 20 years of service before the Notification and had not been promoted by 1 July 2015; therefore, the petitioner’s retirement before the Notification could not extinguish an entitlement that was to operate notionally from the date of completion of 20 years.

Any placement as Conductor-Adda Incharge did not constitute promotion, particularly in light of the principle recognised in Suresh Kumar.

The rejection order ignored Clause IV and introduced retirement as a disqualification not found in the Notification; it was consequently held to suffer from non-application of mind and perversity.

Since the petitioner had retired on 30 June 2015, the benefit was directed to be treated notionally as on 1 July 2015 and used for recalculating his retiral benefits.

The rejection order dated 21 September 2016 was quashed and set aside.

HRTC was directed to grant the petitioner two additional increments as a Conductor notionally with effect from 8 December 2003 and to reckon them for all retiral benefits with effect from 1 July 2015, including revised retiral benefits, within four weeks.

If the benefits were not released within that period, HRTC was directed to pay interest at 6% per annum from the expiry of four weeks until realisation.

Parties were left to bear their own costs.