Union Of INDIA And 3 Others vs. Ravindra Alajangi
Facts
These writ petitions were filed by various entities of the Union of India, including BSNL and South Central Railways, challenging orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench. The petitioners sought to quash the CAT's orders which were in favour of retired employees. The retired employees, who retired on June 30th and whose increments were due on July 1st, were held by the CAT to be entitled to the benefit of that increment. The petitioners, representing the Union of India, were aggrieved by these CAT orders and approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Held
The High Court held that the issue involved in all these writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Director (ADMN-I), KPTCL vs. C.P. Manjunath and Ors. In that Apex Court judgment, it was held that employees who retired on June 30th and whose increments fell on July 1st are entitled to the benefit of the increment. Consequently, following the Apex Court's decision, the High Court found that all the writ petitions filed by the Union of India were liable to be dismissed. The Court granted the petitioners six months' time to comply with the order passed by the Court. No costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether employees who retired on June 30th are entitled to the increment that would have fallen due on July 1st of the same year, as per the relevant service rules and precedents? The petitioners (Union of India) argued that the CAT's orders were erroneous and contrary to law, implying that retired employees are not entitled to increments that fall due after their retirement date. They sought to set aside these orders. The respondents (retired employees) contended, and the CAT had held, that such employees are indeed entitled to the benefit of the increment. Their argument, implicitly, was that the entitlement to the increment accrued before their retirement, even if the date of increment fell after the retirement date. The petitioners submitted that the issue in all these writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Director (ADMN-I), KPTCL vs. C.P. Manjunath and Ors.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[ 3318 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Juri iction) THUR AY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO W.P.NOs.36137 OF 2022 18590. 18630, 18635 , 18756 . 19408, 20907,2 0908.20922, 20926, 21040 21056 21144 21267 23196 0F 2020 AND 173 0F 2021 WRIT PETITION NO. 36137 0F 2022: Between:
The General lvlanager, Telecom District, BSNL, Guntur.
The Chief General Manager, Telecom Telecom Circle, Hyderabad'
The Chairman & Managing Director, BSNL, Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., 4rn Floor, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001. 4. Union of lndia, Represented by the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication and iT, 20, Rshok Road, New Delhi.
The Chief Controller of Communications Accounts, Telecom' Telangana Circle, Hyderabad.
The Chief General Manager, BSNL, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai. ...PETITIONERS AND Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any writ or order or direction more particu
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 Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.