The Allahabad High Court has taken a strong stance against the Union of India and various departments of the Indian Railways for their failure to grant notional increments to employees retiring on June 30. In a recent judgment, the court imposed a penalty of ₹50,000 on the authorities for not adhering to the established legal precedents set by the Supreme Court.
Background of the Case
A group of twelve retired employees from the Railway Protection Force (RPF) approached the High Court after being denied their rightful annual increment. These employees had retired on June 30 in different years and were deprived of the increment that would have otherwise accrued on July 1, solely because they were not in service on that date.
The petitioners argued that they had diligently served from July 1 of the previous year to June 30 of their retirement year, making them eligible for the increment. They contended that denying the benefit based on a technicality was unjust and sought a revision of their basic pay and retirement benefits.
Legal Precedents and Supreme Court Rulings
The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Director (Administration and Human Resources) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others and Union of India & Ors. v. M. Siddaraj, which upheld that employees retiring on June 30 are entitled to a notional increment for pension calculations.
Read Also:- Court Lacks Expertise to Verify Signatures; Must Seek Handwriting Expert's Opinion: Allahabad HC
In these cases, the Supreme Court held that:
"A government servant earns an annual increment based on their service and good conduct. Denying this benefit merely because the employee retired a day before the increment was due is arbitrary and unjust."
Railways' Justification and Court’s Response
The Director General of RPF, Railway Board, submitted an affidavit stating that the Ministry of Railways lacked the authority to unilaterally extend this benefit under the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. They argued that the issue was under review by the Department of Personnel & Training (DOP&T) and pending further government policy decisions.
However, the High Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the Supreme Court’s judgment was binding and should be implemented unless overturned or stayed. Justice J.J. Munir remarked:
"The Government of India cannot sit in judgment on a writ of the Court, once issued. A writ stops only if it is stayed in competent proceedings. An order cannot be disregarded by an officer claiming that he will disregard the law laid down by a Constitutional Court."
The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and directed that:
- The notional increment be granted to all petitioners with effect from the respective years of their retirement.
- Pension benefits be revised accordingly, with arrears payable from May 1, 2023.
- The authorities must implement the judgment within three months.
- A penalty of ₹50,000 be imposed on the respondents for their failure to comply with established legal precedents.
Case Title: R.K. Prasad and others v. Union of India and others [WRIT - A NO. 13305 OF 2024]
