Unadjudicated absence cannot justify withholding annual increments without a formal service order.

The original petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in December 1988.

After taking two days’ leave in November 1990, he fell ill and remained absent until he was permitted to rejoin by the District Education Officer on 16 October 1996; the order stated that the absence period would be decided later.

The authorities did not decide how that period should be treated, and the petitioner alleged that he consequently received only the minimum basic pay and no annual increments.

A 2021 charge-sheet concerning the absence was stayed in a separate writ petition; after the employee’s death, that departmental enquiry was abated.

His legal representative pursued the present petition, seeking revised pay, increments, pensionary benefits, and consideration for Kramonnati.

1. Whether the respondents could continue to withhold the original petitioner’s annual increments and consequential pay and pension benefits when they had not formally decided how to treat his absence from 7 November 1990 to 17 October 1996.

2. Whether delay barred the claim for correction of pay and pension, given the asserted recurring nature of the cause of action.

3. Whether the legal representative was entitled to a direction for consideration of Kramonnati benefits by comparison with the original petitioner’s juniors.

Under Fundamental Rule 24, an increment is ordinarily drawn as a matter of course unless withheld in accordance with the applicable rules; the judgment stated that the increment could not be withheld merely as a matter of discretion and referred to the need for a specific order under the proviso.

In M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628, as discussed in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, SLP (Civil) No. 2946 of 2022, an incorrect pay computation may give rise to a recurring cause of action while the employee is in service; arrears may nevertheless be limited to the period not time-barred, rather than rejecting the entire claim.

The Court also relied on the principle that a departmental enquiry cannot proceed after the delinquent employee’s death, referring to Hardeep Kaur v. Mahakaushal Kshetriya Gramin Bank, 2013 (4) MPLJ 125.

The Court found that the respondents had neither decided the absence period nor passed an order treating it as dies non or imposing a punishment, despite the 1996 direction that the matter would be decided later.

The later charge-sheet did not resolve the matter because the enquiry had been abated following the employee’s death.

Applying FR 24, the Court held that increments could not be withheld merely at the respondents’ discretion in the absence of an applicable order.

It rejected the delay objection because the pay and pension consequences constituted a recurring cause of action, while addressing the Kramonnati claim separately by directing consideration against the position of the petitioner’s juniors.

The respondents were directed to revise the original petitioner’s salary from November 1990, add annual increments, calculate and pay arrears, and revise the PPO, GPO, and family pension, with payment within three months.

Interest was directed at 6% per annum within that period, increasing to 12% per annum from the date of entitlement until payment if the deadline was not met.

The respondents were also directed to consider the original petitioner’s eligibility for Kramonnati on completion of 12 and 24 years of service, at par with his juniors, by a reasoned and speaking order, and to extend the benefit if he was found eligible.