At, Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. R. RAMANUJAM
By, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. P. MADHAVAN
By, JUDICIAL MEMBER
For the Applicants: Dr. P.S. Vijayakumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: SU. Srinivasan, Advocate.
P. Madhavan, Member (J).
1. MA for joining the applicants together and filing a single OA is allowed.
2. The above OA is filed seeking the following relief:-
“a) to call for the connected records from the respondents and on perusal quash/set-aside the impugned orders, issued under Lr.Nos.23/01/2017-Admn./ADG(SR)-I/827-29, dated 08.11.2018, 23/01/2017-Admn./ADG(SR)-I/129, dated 21.02.2019 and 23/01/2017-Admn./ADG(SR)-I/219, dated 18.03.2019 by the 4th respondent as well as Lr.Nos.5/14(misc)/2017-EC-II(b)/68, dated 04.2.2019 and Lr.No.12/70/2018-EC-IV(SC)/264, dated 26.2.2019, issued by the 2nd respondent herein and consequentially direct the respondents to grant increment w.e.f. 1st July of the retiring year for the service rendered by the applicants (30th June Retirees) for their last spell of 12 months before their retirement and thereby revise and refix the pensionary benefits such as pension, gratuity, commutation, etc. and pay the arrears of the same to the applicants;
b) To allow the OA with costs and
c) To pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants retired from service on 30th June of their respective years of superannuation and since they will be completing an year of service on 1st of July they are entitled to one more increment and it has to be counted for pensionary benefits.
4. The counsel for the applicants mainly rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in “Ayyanperumal v. Union of India (W.P. 15732/2017).
5. Mr.SU.Srinivasan takes notice for the respondents and submits that a similar issue has been dealt with in various OAs and this Tribunal dismissed the same following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief General Manager, Telecom, BSNL & Another v. U.V.George reported in (2008) 14 SCC 699. Since the instant matter is identical, this OA also be dismissed in similar lines.
6. We have heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. On perusal, it is seen that this Tribunal had dealt with a similar issue in OA Nos. 1710/2018 to 1714/2018 wherein the claim raised by the applicants therein was rejected on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief General Manager v. U.V.George & Others (2008) 14 SCC 699 had laid down the law relating to the retirement of a Central Government employee under FR 56. It was held that a person is considered as retired on his attaining 60 years and they are permitted to continue till 30.6.18 only for the purpose of pay and allowances only. “We are unable to countenance with the decision of the Tribunal and the High Court. As already noticed they were retired w.e.f. 16.12.95 and 03.12.95 respectively, but because of the provision under FR 56(a) they were allowed to retire on the last date of the month, the grace period of which was granted to them for the purpose of pay and allowances only. Legally they were retired on 16.12.95 and 03.12.95 respectively and therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be held that their pensionary benefits can be reckoned from 1.1.96. The relationship of employer and employee was terminated in the afternoon of 16.12.95 and 3.12.95 respectively.”
7. The same principle was followed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in A.V.Thiyagarajan vs. The Secretary to Government (W.P.No.20732/2012 dated 27.11.2012) and by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Union of India & 3 Others v. YNR Rao (WP 18186/2003). In YNR Rao's case it is observed in Para-5 that –
“5. But for the provisions of FR 56, which provides that a Government Servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of last date of the month in which he had attained the age of 58 years, the respondent, who was born on 9.3.1937 would have retired on 8.3.1995. The provision for retirement from service on the afternoon of the last date of the month in which the Government Servant attains the age of retirement instead of on the actual completion of the age of retirement in FR 56 was introduced in the year 1973- 74 for accounting and administrative convenience. What is significant is the proviso to clause (a) of FR 56 which provides that an employee whose date of birth is first of a month, shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last date of the preceding month on attaining the age of 58 years. Therefore, if the date of birth of a government servant is 1.4.1937 he would retire from service not on 30.4.1995, but on 31.3.1995. If a person born on 1.4.1937 shall retire on 31.3.1995, it would be illogical to say a person born on 9.3.1937 would retire with effect from 1.4.1995. That would be the effect, if the decision of the Full Bench of the CAT, Mumbai, is to be accepted. Therefore, a government servant retiring on the afternoon of 31.3.1995 retires on 31.3.1995 and not from 1.4.1995. We hold that the decision of the Full Bench (Mumbai) of the CAT that a government servant retiring on the afternoon of 31st March is to be treated as retiring with effect from the first day of April, that is same as retiring on the forenoon of first of April, is not good law.”
The grace period so given cannot be tagged with his substantive service for counting further increments.
8. Further, Rule 10 of CCS (Pension) Rules does not permit to take into consideration emoluments which fell due after retirement.
9. From the above, it can be seen that an employee legally retires on attaining
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
superannuation (60 years) and as per the decision, the relationship of employer employee is terminated. They continue thereafter as a grace period given to the employee under FR 56. There is no provision to consider this grace period alongwith his service prior to his retirement. So, we are of the view that the applicants had failed to make out a prima facie case. We are bound to follow the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is no merit in the contentions raised by the applicants. 10. Since the OA on hand is identical to the one cited supra, the present OA is also dismissed at the admission stage.