Dismissed¶29

Union of India & Anr. v. Kulbir Singh & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/1802/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 1802/2026; Union of India v. Kulbir Singh & Ors.; VRS; voluntary retirement; annual increment; increment accruing day after retirement; KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani; Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023; Union of India v. M. Siddaraj SLP(C) No. 4722/2021; CAT Principal Bench O.A. No. 446/2021; order dated 03.07.2025; retirement 31.01.2020; increment date 01.02.2020; FAQs; increment denial; Delhi High Court 09.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

The Petitioners failed to draw the Court's attention to any term of the VRS which debars the employee from claiming the benefit of annual increment. ¶19

Union of India & Anr. Vs Kulbir Singh & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondents who opted for voluntary retirement (VRS) effective 31.01.2020 are entitled to the annual increment which accrued on 01.02.2020, the day following their retirement. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The Petitioners could not dispute that the Respondents had earned the annual increment for rendering their services for one year preceding the date of retirement, by showing good behaviour and efficiency.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioners failed to draw the Court's attention to any term of the VRS which debars the employee from claiming the benefit of annual increment.

¶19

Key takeaways

Nothing was pointed out to show that the Respondents had agreed to let go of the benefit of increment which would have been payable as per the agreed rules.ratio¶27
It was not disputed by the Petitioners that the next date of annual increment fell on 01.02.2020 upon completion of 365 days of duty on 30.01.2020, i.e., the date of retirement of the Respondent employees.ratio¶28
The issue is squarely covered by the Supreme Court judgement in The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. v. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023), and the benefit of that judgement should be given to the Respondents.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anil Kshetarpal & Amit Mahajan, JJ.) dismissed the Union of India's W.P.(C) 1802/2026 challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench order dated 03.07.2025 in O.A. No. 446/2021, which had granted Kulbir Singh & Ors. the annual increment accruing on 01.02.2020 although they retired via VRS w.e.f. 31.01.2020. Held: no term of the VRS was shown to debar the increment claim; the Respondents had earned the increment for one year's service preceding retirement (365 days completed on 30.01.2020); the issue is squarely covered by the Supreme Court decision in The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. v. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023; a benefit already earned cannot be denied merely because it becomes payable on a subsequent date under administrative rules.

¶1

$~67

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1802/2026, CM 8715/2026 and CM APPL. 8716/2026

¶4

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Shashank Bajpai CGSC, Ms Aashna Mehra, Mr. Vatsal Tripathi, Mr. Govind Singh Chauhan, Advocates

¶6

versus KULBIR SINGH & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Atul Chaubey, Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 09.02.2026

¶11

Through the present Petition, the Petitioners assail the correctness of the order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’] in O.A. No. 446/2021, whereby the Tribunal granted the Respondents the benefit of annual increment on the basis of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023, captioned The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. v. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.

¶12

The Respondents in the present case voluntarily retired w.e.f. 31.01.2020 and claimed annual increments which accrued on 01.02.2020. The same was denied, which led to the filing of the Original Application before the learned Tribunal.

¶13

The Respondents contended before the learned Tribunal that similarly situated persons who have taken voluntary retirement were given benefit by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Department in Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4722/2021.

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

W.P.(C) 1802/2026

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 11:14:45

¶18

Per contra , the Petitioners rely upon frequently asked questions (FAQs) to contend that the annual increment benefit is not extended to the employees who opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme ( ‘VRS’ ), having voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions of the scheme.

¶19

On being pointedly asked, the Petitioners failed to draw the attention of the Court towards any term of the VRS, which debars the employee from claiming the benefit of annual increment.

¶20

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. (supra) was dealing with the case where the employees retired one day earlier than the date on which the annual increment became payable. They had, however, completed one year of service preceding the date of retirement and had earned one annual increment. The increment was denied on the ground that the date on which the increment accrued, i.e., the 366^th day, the employee was not in service. It was held that the increment is earned for rendering their services for one year preceding the date of retirement and only because the benefit accrues on a day after the retirement, the benefit cannot be denied.

¶21

In the present case also, the Petitioners have not been able to dispute that the Respondents had earned the annual increment for rendering their services for one year preceding the date of retirement by showing good behaviour and efficiency. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the word accrued should be understood liberally to mean that the benefit would be payable on the succeeding day, and any contrary view denying a government servant legitimate annual increment which he is entitled to for rendering the services over a year would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness. Such a narrow

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

W.P.(C) 1802/2026

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 11:14:45

¶26

interpretation should be avoided.

¶27

Pertinently, the only reason pressed for denying the increment as contended is that the Respondents did not retire on attaining the age of superannuation but took VRS. 9. Undisputedly, the employee who seeks VRS is governed by the terms as contained therein. 10. In the present case, however, nothing has been pointed out to show that the Respondents had agreed to let go of the benefit of increment which would have been payable as per the agreed rules.

¶28

It is not disputed by the Petitioners that the next date of annual increment fell on 01.02.2020 upon completion of 365 days of duty on 30.01.2020, i.e., the date of retirement of the Respondent employees. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, this issue is squarely covered by the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. (supra) and we see no reason why the benefit of the said judgement should not be given to the Respondents.

¶29

It is not disputed that the Respondents completed 365 days of satisfactory work and earned the increment. The Department cannot deny the benefit which has already been earned by the employee, though payable on a subsequent date due to the administrative rules. 14. Accordingly, the present Petition, along with pending applications, stands dismissed.

¶30

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶31

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶32

FEBRUARY 9, 2026/ DU/s.godara

¶33

Page 3 of 3

¶34

W.P.(C) 1802/2026

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 11:14:45

Union of India & Anr. v. Kulbir Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Anr. v. Kulbir Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuj Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Sri Saudan Singh Institute of Higher Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Chandrabali Singh Urmila Mahavidyalaya Vs National Council for Teacher Education Andanr

Indradev Institute of Education and Technology Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Deepak Kaushik Vs Principal Judge North West District and Ors.

Pravar Gautam Vs Wave Megacity Center Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Gulshan Kumar and Others Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another

Smt Sangeeta Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dr. Bahubali N. Shetti Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Anr.

Federal Bank Ltd. Vs B M Bajaj through Lrs & Ors.

Bankesh Kumar Sinha Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited through Chairman Cum Managing Director & Ors.

Ramesh Chandra & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs Ranjit Singh

Manoj Kumar Solanki Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.