The Union of India Vs Prahlad Roy

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Shally Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Uma Kant Mishra, Advocate Mr.Om Prakash Singh, Advocate

¶12

======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

¶14

Date : 06-01-2026

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 050/00813/2023 whereby and whereunder the petitioners herein have been directed to grant benefit of annual increment to the sole respondent which was to be added with effect from 1^st of July of the said year when the sole respondent stood retired apart from

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026 2/6

¶17

the petitioners being directed to recalculate the benefit of retiral benefits and issue fresh pension order in favour of the sole respondent.

¶18

We find from the records that the issue involved in the present writ petition is that undisputedly the sole respondent stood superannuated on 30.06.2018 and though one annual increment was due to him on 01.07.2018, however having superannuated one day before the date of grant of annual increment, the benefit of grant of one notional increment was denied to the respondent.

¶19

At the outset, the learned counsels for the parties have referred to the settled principle of law by relying on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Director (Administration and Human Resources) KPTCL and Others vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Others, reported in (2023) 14 SCC 411 , wherein it has been held that merely because the government servant retired on the very next day, the same cannot be a ground to deny him benefit of annual increment and in such cases, the government employee is entitled to grant of one annual increment which he had earned on the last day of his service for rendering his services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiency.

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026 3/6

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners has next referred to an order dated 20.02.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another vs. M. Siddaraj, in Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 3933 of 2023 and other analogous cases to submit that the aforesaid judgment dated 11.04.2023 had though been modified a bit, nonetheless the sole respondent would be entitled to one increment which shall be payable on and after 01.05.2023. The relevant portion of the said order dated 20.02.2025 reads as under :-

¶22

“We had passed the following interim order dated 06.09.2024, the operative portion of which reads as under:

¶23

"(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid.

¶24

(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026

¶26

4/6

¶27

paid.

¶28

(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the appellate court.

¶29

(d) In case any retired employee has filed any application for intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable from the month in which the application for intervention/impleadment was filed."

¶30

We are inclined to dispose of the present miscellaneous applications directing that Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the order dated 06.09.2024 will be treated as final directions. We are, however, of the opinion that clause (d) of the order dated 06.09.2024 requires modification which shall now read as under:

¶31

"(d) In case any retired employee

¶32

filed an application for intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court, the enhanced pension. by including one increment will be

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026

¶34

5/6

¶35

payable for the period of three years prior to the month in which the application for intervention/ impleadment/writ petition/ original application was filed."

¶36

Further, clause (d) will not apply to the retired government employee who filed a writ petition/original application or an application for intervention before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court after the judgment in "Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj", as in such cases, clause (a) will apply.

¶37

Recording the aforesaid, the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.

¶38

We, further, clarify that in case any excess payment has already been made, including arrears, such amount paid will not be recovered.”

¶39

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the revised pension payment order has already been issued, whereafter the arrears have also stood paid with effect from 01.05.2023, to the respondent, however as far as computation of the revised retiral benefits are concerned, the same would be done in accordance with the aforesaid judgment dated 11.04.2023, passed in the case of C.P. Mundinamani

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026 6/6

¶41

(supra) read with the order dated 20.02.2025, rendered in the case of M. Siddaraj ( supra), within a period of four weeks from today.

¶42