Allahabad High Court
Dheeraj Singh Raghav & Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 5 July, 2021
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 13699 of 2021
Petitioner :- Dheeraj Singh Raghav & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Industries,Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akash Dikshit
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
The case is taken up through video conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Additional CSC for State and perused the records.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed to direct respondent no. 2 to accord one notional increment for the petitioners on having completed one year period of service due on the next date of retirement i.e. first of July by extending the benefit of order dated 15.09.2017 passed in Writ Petition no. 15732 of 2017 (P. Ayyamperumal vs The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal & others) by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, a copy of which is annexure 2 to this petition, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court with dismissal of the Special Leave Petition vide order dated 23.07.2018, a copy of which is annexure 3 to this petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties and having perused the records it is apparent that before the Madras High Court, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service had filed the petition being aggrieved with an order passed by the Tribunal. The case of the petitioner before the Madras High Court was that he had rendered one year complete service prior to his retirement and thus was entitled for an increment which was due on next day of his retirement. In this regard he placed reliance on a government order dated 31.12.2014 by Government of Tamil Nadu whereby the said Government order mentioned that the Pay Grievance Cell has recommended that when the date of increment of a Government servant falls due on the date following superannuation on completion of one full year of service, such service may be considered for benefit of notional increment for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Reliance had also been placed on Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 whereby an amendment had been made after the Sixth Pay Commission which fixed the date of 1st July as date of increment for all Central Government employees.
In the present case, the petitioners are all State Government employees and thus would not be governed by the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
Even otherwise, it is not the case of the petitioners that any Government order akin to the Government Order issued by the Government of Tamilnadu had been issued by the State of U.P. for giving of an increment after the retirement. Thus, it is apparent that the judgment of Madras High Court is not applicable to the petitioners.
Considering the above, this petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.7.2021
J.K. Dinkar
