Bani Pathak vs The Tezpur University And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2493 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010135052021




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)



                          Case No. : WP(C)/4447/2021


         BANI PATHAK
         S/O- LT. KRISHNA KANTA PATHAK, R/O- H.NO. 4, BYE LANE-1, KAILASH
         NAGAR, BELTOLA, P.S. DISPUR, GHY, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), PIN- 781028



         VERSUS

         THE TEZPUR UNIVERSITY AND 3 ORS.
         REP. BY THE REGISTRAR OF TEZPUR UNIVERSITY, P.O. NAPAM AND P.S.
         BORGHAT, DIST.- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784028

         2:THE VICE CHANCELLOR
         TEZPUR UNIVERSITY
          P.O. NAPAM AND P.S. BORGHAT
          DIST.- SONITPUR
         ASSAM
          PIN- 784028

         3:THE REGISTRAR
         TEZPUR UNIVERSITY
          P.O. NAPAM AND P.S. BORGHAT
          DIST.- SONITPUR
         ASSAM
          PIN- 784028

         4:THE UNION OF INDIA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
          MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
          NEW DELHI
          INDIA
                                                                               Page No.# 2/4


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR S BORTHAKUR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, T U




                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

                                         ORDER

Date : 26-07-2022

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Finance Officer by appointment letter dated 20.12.1994 issued by the Registrar of Tezpur University. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Registrar by order dated 22.04.2021 issued by the Registrar of Tezpur University. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner by Office Order dated 30.06.2021 was released from Tezpur University service w.e.f. 30.06.2021.

3. The only question involved in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for one notional increment w.e.f. 01.07.2020 to 30.06.2021 considering the

fact that the petitioner retired on 30.06.2021. After the 6 th Pay Commission, the

Central Government fixed 1st July as the date of increment of employees by amending Rule 10 of the Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (in short Rules of 2008). Due to the amendment, the petitioner was denied the last increment though he completed one full year in service i.e. from 01.07.2020 to 30.06.2021. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this present writ petition.

4. In the present case in hand, the petitioner retired on 30.06.2021. As per Rules of 2008 increment has to be given to the petitioner only w.e.f. 01.07.2020. However, as the petitioner had superannuated on 30.06.2021, the same was refused.

Page No.# 3/4

5. The respondents have filed an affidavit in opposition against the writ petition and in paragraph-12 it is stated that the petitioner has completed one year of service in the University from 01.07.2020 to 30.06.2021 and therefore, he becomes eligible for annual increment w.e.f. 01.07.2021. However, as the petitioner is not on the role of the University on 01.07.2021 and in terms of the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 03.02.2021 the petitioner cannot be allowed notional income on 01.07.2021 as he cease to be an employee of the University from the afternoon of 30.06.2021. This is the only stand taken by the respondent to deny the annual increment w.e.f. 01.07.2020 to 30.06.2021.

6. The petitioner, as not denied by the respondent, has completed one year of service on 30.06.2021.

7. This Court has considered the judgment of Madras High Court in WP(C) 15732/2017 (P. Ayyamperumal v. Registrar, CAT), wherein, in similar situation, Hon'ble Madras High Court has given relief to the said petitioner by giving him one notional increment on the ground that the said petitioner had completed one year of service on the date of his retirement though the date of increment falls on the next date of his retirement.

8. In similar cases, the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 10509/2019 (Gopal Singh - vs- Union of India and Ors.) has also passed similar judgment taking into account the judgment passed in P. Ayyamperumal (supra) of the Madras High Court.

9. After considering the judgment of the Madras High Court as well as the Delhi High Court, this Court is of the view that the facts in the present case is also identical to the facts in the petition before the Madras High Court as well as the Delhi High Court.

10. In the said circumstance, the respondents are directed to give one notional increment for the period 01.07.2020 to 30.06.2021 as the petitioner has already completed one full year of service though his increment fall only on 01.07.2021 for the Page No.# 4/4

purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose.

The writ petition is allowed.

However, no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant