it2025_00323 — This OA for fixation of his pay taking into account the stagnation increment fails as the order to that effect came into force after he had retired from service

This OA for fixation of his pay taking into account the stagnation increment fails as the order to that effect came into force after he had retired from service — The Applicant's claim for counting two increments granted after retirement towards pay fixation on promotion and pension, and whether this can be considered despite retiring before the OM came into e... — Facts: The Applicant herein, was working as a Supervisor-RMS under Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ville Parle, Mumbai (R-1 herein) and retired from service on 30-9-1991. He has filed this OA aggrieved by non-counting of stagnation increment for the purpose of promotion and pension. The main issue to be decided in this OA is, whether the Applicant is entitled to the benefit of counting the two stagnation increments for the purpose of promotion as well as fixation of pension. The Applicant prays for a direction to the Respondents to revise the pay on promotion notionally after adding two stagnation increments in 1980 and 1982 and also for a direction to revise the pension after giving effect to two stagnation increments on the pay of the Applicant. Initially, the Applicant was not granted stagnation increment but consequent to filing a complaint in staff Adalat, dated 16-12-2005, he was granted two stagnation increments of ₹ 12 and ₹ 24 with effect from 1-4-1980 and 1-4-1982 respectively. It was made clear that these two increments will not be taken into account for fixation of his pay on next promotion as per Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, OM, dated 30-3-1993 since the effect of this order is from the date of issue only and the Applicant retired earlier on 30-9-1991. The issue is whether the two increments granted to him in the year 2006, 15 years after his retirement can also be taken into consideration towards pay fixed after promotion and also on the calculation of pension after his retirement. Applicant relies on FR 22, Item 28 in Kartavya Compilation of FR & SR, Part-I for the claim of including stagnation increments for fixation of pay on promotion. This is permissible only on promotion. But the Applicant could not exercise that option after retirement since the stagnation increments were granted to him in 2006. Similarly the effect of OM, dated 30-9-1993 will not also be applicable to him since he had retired before the OM came into effect and the OM comes into effect from the date of its issue as stated in the OM itself. The Respondents cited the above Law based on the case of Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Airlines v. Binod Kumar Sinha and others [AIR 2001 SCC 3988 = 2001 (8) SCC 722 ]. It is also pointed out that the Applicant had not challenged the prospective applicability of OM, dated 30-9-1993. Office Memorandum issued subsequently, dated 6-6-1994 for fixation of pay on promotion by taking into account stagnation is reproduced. A perusal of the above OM makes it clear that although the Government have decided to include the stagnation increment on fixation of pay on promotion, there is an express requirement that the Government servants on promotion will have an option to get their pay fixed as provided in saving Clause FR 22 (I)

(a) (i). This option is not available to the Applicant as he had already retired in 1991. Applicant's reliance in the case of G. Jayaraman v. Director of School Education, Chennai and others in the Writ Petition No. 3210 of 2007 filed in Madras High Court and decided on 18-4-2011 is not tenable since the judgment is on fixation of stagnation increment and not the effect of stagnation increment or pay fixation. Similarly judgment in the case of N.S. Ranganiti v. Director of High School Education, Chennai and others in W.P. No. 22589 of 2010, dated 3-8-2011 is also not applicable in this case since the fact of that case is different from the present one and that judgment of Apex Court was for giving the benefit of increment for service already rendered by the petitioner. In the present case, the Applicant who had obtained two stagnation increments, the issue to be decided is about fixation of pay on promotion for which an option had to be exercised at the time of promotion which the Applicant could not do as he had retired before the stagnation increment was granted to him. The O.A. No. 81 of 2001 of Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal quoted by him is irrelevant as the special pay granted to him had already been taken into account while fixing his pension. Judgment in the case of Union of India and another v. SPS Vains (Retd.) and others [2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 838 ] will also not come to his help in view of clear stipulation of the Government that the effect of stagnation increment will be made applicable only from the date of OM, dated 30-9-1993 was issued. Such a provision is only an elaboration of policy and in no way can be treated as contravention of rules.