Patna High Court
IndiaversusPrahlad Roy
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
A retired government employee is entitled to the notional annual increment earned on the last day of service, and the pension must be recomputed to include that increment.
Summary
The Union of India filed a writ petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order that denied a retired postal assistant, Prahlad Roy, a notional annual increment because he retired one day before the increment's effective date. The petition argued that Supreme Court precedents entitle a government servant to the increment earned on the last day of service. The Court examined the decisions in Director (Administration and Human Resources) KPTCL & Others v. C.P. Mundinamani (2023) 14 SCC 411 and Union of India & Another v. M. Siddaraj (2025) which affirm the right to such increments. Relying on these authorities, the Court held that the respondent must receive the increment and the pension should be recalculated accordingly. The parties agreed, and the writ petition was disposed with directions to issue a revised pension order within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether a government servant who retires one day before the scheduled date of an annual increment is entitled to that increment.
- Whether the pension order must be recomputed to include the notional increment as per Supreme Court precedents.
- Whether the Supreme Court judgments constitute res judicata against the CAT order.
Subjects
- annual increment
- pension
- superannuation
- government servant
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- Supreme Court precedent
- notional increment
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11298 of 2025
======================================================
1. The Union of India through Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar, Patna-800001.
3. The General Manager (Finance) Postal Accounts, GPO Campus, Patna-
800001.
4. The Accounts Officer (Pension Section) GM Finance PAO Patna, GPO-
800001.
5. The Divisional Supdt. Posts, Begusarai-851101.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Prahlad Roy S/o Late Madan Roya, Postal Assistant (Rtd), Begusarai HO,
Resident of Village and PO-Chandaur, Via-Teghra, Distt-Begusarai-851133.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Shally Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Uma Kant Mishra, Advocate
Mr.Om Prakash Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date : 06-01-2026
The present writ petition has been filed against the order
dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 050/00813/2023
whereby and whereunder the petitioners herein have been
directed to grant benefit of annual increment to the sole
respondent which was to be added with effect from 1st of July of
the said year when the sole respondent stood retired apart from
Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
2/6
the petitioners being directed to recalculate the benefit of retiral
benefits and issue fresh pension order in favour of the sole
respondent.
2. We find from the records that the issue involved in the
present writ petition is that undisputedly the sole respondent
stood superannuated on 30.06.2018 and though one annual
increment was due to him on 01.07.2018, however having
superannuated one day before the date of grant of annual
increment, the benefit of grant of one notional increment was
denied to the respondent.
3. At the outset, the learned counsels for the parties have
referred to the settled principle of law by relying on a judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Director
(Administration and Human Resources) KPTCL and Others
vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Others, reported in (2023) 14 SCC
411, wherein it has been held that merely because the
government servant retired on the very next day, the same
cannot be a ground to deny him benefit of annual increment and
in such cases, the government employee is entitled to grant of
one annual increment which he had earned on the last day of his
service for rendering his services preceding one year from the
date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiency.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
3/6
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has next referred
to an order dated 20.02.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Union of India and Another vs. M. Siddaraj, in
Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400 of 2024 in Civil
Appeal No. 3933 of 2023 and other analogous cases to submit
that the aforesaid judgment dated 11.04.2023 had though been
modified a bit, nonetheless the sole respondent would be
entitled to one increment which shall be payable on and after
01.05.2023. The relevant portion of the said order dated
20.02.2025 reads 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
4/6
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
5/6
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.
Recording the aforesaid, the
miscellaneous applications are disposed
of.
We, further, clarify that in case
any excess payment has already been
made, including arrears, such amount
paid will not be recovered.”
5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that the revised pension payment order has
already been issued, whereafter the arrears have also stood paid
with effect from 01.05.2023, to the respondent, however as far
as computation of the revised retiral benefits are concerned, the
same would be done in accordance with the aforesaid judgment
dated 11.04.2023, passed in the case of C.P. Mundinamani
Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
6/6
(supra) read with the order dated 20.02.2025, rendered in the
case of M. Siddaraj (supra), within a period of four weeks from
today.
6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of
on the aforesaid terms with the agreement of the parties.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
S.Sb/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 06.01.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…