Allahabad High Court
Union Of India,Ministry Of Railways ... vs Ganga Prasad And Another on 18 November, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:74692-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 376 of 2025
Union of India, Ministry of Railways through Secy. Railway Board, New Delhi and 5 others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Ganga Prasad and another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Ajit Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Dinesh Kumar Shukla
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 14.03.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 2004 of 2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents seeking grant of one notional increment for the service rendered upto 30 June of the year of retirement and consequential arrears of retiral benefits has been allowed, the respondents have been held entitled for increment and arrears for a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition and order dated 21.05.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Application No. 2 of 2025 filed by the appellants seeking modification of the judgement and order dated 14.03.2024, whereby the modification application was rejected.
2. The writ petition was filed by the respondents on 07.03.2024 inter alia seeking one notional increment as on 1st July of the respective year after the retirement on 30th June of that year for the pensionary benefits. As noticed, the writ petition came to be allowed in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Director (Admin. and HR) KPTCL and others vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401 and referring to the judgement in Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh : (2008) 8 SCC 648, the following direction was passed:-
"9. The petitioners as per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is entitled for the increment and arrears for a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition but not for the entire period which is claimed in this case for about a period of thirteen years.
10. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed in terms of preceding paragraph 9 above at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost."
3. The appellants filed application seeking modification in the order passed by learned Single Judge based on the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs. M. Siddaraj, Misc. Application Diary No.2400 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2024 decided on 20.02.2025.
4. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and quoting the order dated 20.02.2025, came to the following conclusion:-
"10. From reading both the orders and the circulars provided by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which has been taken on record, the position which emerges out in the present case is that in the first order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 06.09.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has mentioned that it was informed that a large number of fresh writ petitions have been filed thereafter for removing the confusion, four directions were issued and direction no. (b) is very clear that the persons who have filed the writ petition 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 paid and in condition (c), it has been clarified that 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 and it has been informed by the learned counsel for both the parties till date no special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2024 so it has attained finality.
11. Clause 'd' of modified order dated 25.02.2025 will apply to those cases, where any proceedings by filing a petition etc. have not yet attained finality, hence may not attract clauses 'b' & 'c' in the orders dated 06.09.2024 & 20.02.2025."
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in rejecting the application for modification inasmuch as in the present case, the writ petition was filed on 07.03.2024 and Hon'ble Supreme Court had inter alia directed that 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/Supreme Court after the judgement in Union of India and another vs. M. Siddaraj (supra), which was decided on 19.05.2023, as in such cases, Clause (a) of the order would apply i.e. one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023 and enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid. As the writ petition was filed after 19.05.2023, the dismissal of the modification application was not justified. Further submissions have been made that the original order passed in the writ petition, therefore, requires modification.
6. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the date of the judgement in the case of M. Siddaraj (supra) and the date of filing of the writ petition by the respondents.
7. The directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Siddaraj (supra) read as under:-
"We had passed the following interim order dated 06.09.2024, the operative portion of which reads as under:
?(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.
(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 paid.
(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.
(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.?
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:
?(d) In case any retired employee 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 payable for the period of three years prior to the month in which the application for intervention/ impleadment/ writ petition/ original application was filed.?
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."
.. (emphasis supplied)
8. The stipulation in the order is very clear that where the petition has been filed after the judgement in the case of M. Siddaraj (supra), in such cases Clause (a) will apply and Clause (a) requires the payment after 01.05.2023.
9. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.05.2025 rejecting the modification application cannot be sustained. The same is, therefore, set aside.
10. The appeal is partly allowed. The order dated 14.03.2024 passed in Writ-A No.2004 of 2024 is modified to the extent that the respondents would be entitled to arrears based on notional increment in terms of the directions issued by learned Single Judge w.e.f. 01.05.2023. The requisite arrears be paid to the respondents within a period of 8 weeks from the date of this order.
(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
November 18, 2025
SL
