Gauhati High Court
Prafulla Borah vs The Tezpur University And 2 Ors on 15 May, 2024
Author: Soumitra Saikia
Bench: Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010065382023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1741/2023
PRAFULLA BORAH
S/O- LATE SOMESWAR BORAH, R/O- KAMALA NAGAR, HARIGAON, P.O.
AND P.S. TEZPUR, DIST.- SONITPUR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE TEZPUR UNIVERSITY AND 2 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 P.S. BORGHAT
DIST.- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 78402
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
15.05.2024
Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
K. Gogoi, learned CGC appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Section Officer on 14.03.1997 by the
Registrar of Tezpur University. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the
post of an Assistant Registrar (Officiating) by order dated 05.03.2009 issued by
the Registrar of Tezpur University. The petitioner was allowed to officiate as a
Deputy Registrar in the respondent University by office order dated 17.06.2019.
On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner by Office Order dated
31.12.2021 was released from Tezpur University service w.e.f. 31.12.2021.
3. The only question involved in the present writ petition is whether the
petitioner is entitled for one notional increment w.e.f. 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021
considering the fact that the petitioner retired on 31.12.2021. It is submitted
that the petitioner approached the respondent authority seeking 1 (one) year
increment, however the same was denied vide communication dated 25.10.2022
Page No.# 3/5
by referring that "there is no rules or specific order issued by the Government of
India regarding grant of notional increment on the date of retirement on 30 th
June/31st December." After the 6th 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 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021. 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 31.12.2021. 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 31.12.2021, the
same was refused.
5. The learned CGC appearing for the respondents does not deny that the
petitioner had completed 1 (one) year of service. However, it is submitted that
in terms of the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 03.02.2021, the
petitioner cannot be allowed notional increment on 30 th June/31st December as
he ceased to be an employee of the University from the afternoon of
31.12.2021. This is the only stand taken by the respondent to deny the annual
increment w.e.f. 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021.
Page No.# 4/5
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In the said circumstance, the respondents are directed to give one notional
increment for the period 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021 as the petitioner has already
completed 1 (one) full year of service though his increment fall only on
01.07.2022 for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other
purpose.
Page No.# 5/5
10. The writ petition is allowed. However, no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
