CHANDIGARH: A single day cannot erase a year of service, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled while deciding that a retiree cannot be deprived of an earned increment simply because his superannuation falls a few hours before it.
The court passed these orders while granting relief to a retired BSF inspector who was refused his increment only because he superannuated on the afternoon of Jun 30, 2016, just a day before the hike became due on Jul 1.
Calling the increment “a reward for service actually rendered”, the court ruled such benefits cannot be withheld on the basis of “hyper-technical” reasoning that violates constitutional equality guarantees. Justice Sandeep Moudgil passed these orders while hearing a petition filed by Rajbir Singh, a retired inspector of the BSF and a native of Bhiwani in Haryana.
The petitioner was enrolled as a constable in the BSF on Sep 5, 1979, and during his long service, earned several promotions, ultimately retiring as an inspector. Upon retirement, although the petitioner completed a full year of service from Jul 1, 2015, to Jun 30, 2016, BSF authorities denied him the annual increment due on Jul 1, 2016, solely on the ground that he retired before completion of the last day.
The petitioner was also denied encashment of 316 days of earned leave shown as lapsed, as well as retirement TA under the 7th Pay Commission, though the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) was applicable with effect from Jan 1, 2016. In his plea, the petitioner argued that denial of annual increment is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled position of law.
The petitioner undeniably completed a full year of service from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016, and therefore acquired a vested right to receive the annual increment that was due on July 1, 2016.
It was urged that the BSF rejected the claim solely on the ground that the petitioner retired on the afternoon of Jun 30, 2016, and was thus not “on duty” on Jul 1, 2016, which is arbitrary. Opposing the plea, the central govt submitted that the petitioner had no legal right to claim it, as he retired from service a day before.
The increment could not be granted after cessation of service, as the petitioner was no longer in service when it was due.
The petitioner’s pay fixation was duly verified and certified as correct by the accounts officer, internal audit party, South Bengal Frontier, leaving no scope for alleging any pay anomaly, BSF submitted. After hearing all parties, the director directed BSF to release the revised benefits, including the increment and 7th CPC-compliant TA/DA, within four weeks of receiving the order.
