The Union Of INDIA vs. S.Ramakrishnaiah
Held
The Court held that an employee retiring on the last day of a month due to superannuation is entitled to the increment that falls due on the first day of the succeeding month. This entitlement crystallizes upon completion of the requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day. The Court found that denying this increment would be arbitrary and unreasonable, effectively punishing an employee for no fault of their own. The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Director(Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P.Mundinamani and others, which affirmed the view that such increments are earned and payable. The Court agreed with the High Court's direction in the cited case to grant the annual increment. Consequently, the Writ Petitions were dismissed in light of the Supreme Court's judgment, as the Court found the petitions to be liable for dismissal based on the established legal precedent.
Facts
A batch of Writ Petitions was filed before the High Court. The petitioners, represented by the Deputy Solicitor General for the Union of India, and the respondents' counsel presented their arguments. The core issue revolved around whether an employee retiring on the last day of a month due to superannuation is entitled to an increment that falls due on the first day of the succeeding month. The judgment does not specify the tax period(s), the specific order or action under challenge, the authority that passed it, or the amount in dispute. The procedural history is limited to the filing of these Writ Petitions.
Key Issues
1. Whether an employee retiring on attaining the age of superannuation on the last day of a month is entitled to an increment that falls due on the first day of the succeeding month? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that such an employee should be entitled to the increment, as it is earned for services rendered in the preceding year with good conduct and efficiency. The revenue or State's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Director(Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P.Mundinamani and others.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI & THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
W.P.Nos. 14381, 5873, 6137, 8428, 8472, 8478, 8483, 8486, 8488, 8491, 8571, 8574, 8575, 8576, 8578, 8601, 9153, 9337, 9393, 9469, 10080, 10082, 10749, 12441, 12453, 12454, 12456, 12457, 12476, 12483, 12484, 12538, 12541, 12548, 12550, 12552, 12566, 12567, 12571, 12783, 13021, 14182, 14210, 15589, 16649, 16658 of 2021 AND W.P.Nos.21821, 21833 AND 21995 OF 2022 COMMON ORDER:(per A.V. Sesha Sai, J)
Heard Sri N.Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General for Union of India for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
Since, the issue in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of all these Writ Petitions by way of a Common Order.
The only issue that requires consideration in these Writ Petitions is:-
“Whether an employee, who retires on attaining the age of superannuation on the last day of the preceding month, would be entitled for the increment which falls due on the 1st day of the succeeding month?”.
2
The said issue is no longer res integra, in view of the
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.