| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/54130 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata |
| Decided On | Jun-28-2001 |
| Judge | G G Vice-, S A B.P. |
| Appellant | Deba Prosad Sengupta |
| Respondent | Union of India (Uoi) and ors. |
2. The relevant facts of the case are that after putting in about 37 years of service in the Audit and Accounts Department of the Government of India, the applicant superannuated on 30.6.2000 on attaining the age of 60 years. The normal date of grant of normal increment in his case was 1st July. The applicant who retired on 30.6.2000 wants that he should be granted grade increment which was to fall due on 1.7.2000 because he has worked for full year from 1.7.99 to 30.6.2000. It is stated that the rules and orders of the Government of India are made for disciplined and dedicated workers and a good Government servant should be rewarded for his service and it is legitimate expectation of the applicant to get the grade increment as he had sincerely and with utmost dedication performed the duty during the year 1.7.99 to 30.6.2000.
3. In the reply, the case set up by the respondents is that the applicant was not in service on 1.7.2000 and therefore, he is not entitled to the grade increment falling due on 1 st of July. The respondents have relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Omesh Rai Pahuja v. Controller of Publications, (1988) 6 ATC 937.
4. In the rejoinder, the applicant has reiterated the facts stated in the application. It is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given relief to the petitioners keeping in view the legitimate expectation of the employees. The case of S. Banerjee v. Union of India and Ors., 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 486=1990(1) SLJ 95 (SC) has been referred to in the rejoinder.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant provisions. It is now no more in dispute that the normal date of the increment in the case of the applicant waslst of July and on 1st of July, 2000 the applicant was not in service. Learned Counsel for the applicant has not been able to show as to how the applicant was entitled to the grade increment under Rule 26 of Fundamental Rule when he was not in service on 1st of July.
6. The premises of the argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant is the case of S. Banerjee v. Union of India (supra). The facts of that case were that 5. Banerjee who was Additional Registrar of the Supreme Court had sought voluntary retirement and the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India had permitted him to retire voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court with effect from forenoon of January 1, 1986. After his retirement the report of the 4th Central Pay Commission was published. It was recommended by the Pay Commission that in the case of employees retiring during the period January 1, 1986 to September 30, 1986 Government may consider treating the entire dearness allowance drawn by them upto December 31, 1985 as pay for pensionary benefits. The question for consideration was whether the service of 5. Banerjee who had retired on 1.1.86 forenoon was to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Keeping in view the fact that it was not the case of the Union of India that Shri Banerjee had retired on 31.12.85 from service, it was directed to calculate his pension in accordance with the recommendations of the Pay Commission as contained in paragraph 17.3. It is obvious that that case was decided on its peculiar facts. The instant case is not of that type. It is not the case for the applicant that he was in service upto forenoon of 1st of July, 2000. In the instant case, the applicant retired on 30.6.2000 on attaining the age of 60 years. By no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that he was in service on 1.7.2000. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grade increment..
7. A similar question arose in the case of Omesh Rai Pahuja (supra), wherein Rule 26 of the Fundamental Rules was the subject matter of consideration. In that case also the applicant had prayed for the grade increment the basis of rendering service for preceding 12 months. The contention was repelled holding that the applicant was not in service on the date, the next grade increment was to become due. The case applies on all fours to the instant case.
8. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant had legitimate expectation of getting grade increment is not tenable. It is not understood how there could be legitimate expectation for the grade increment falling due on 1.7.2000 when the applicant was not in service on that date. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71, relied on by Mr. Chakraborty, held that whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate is a question of fact in each case, and whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. It has been further observed that the doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent.
9. There is a specific rule providing for the grade increment. It does not allow grade increment to a retired person. If in one case the Court permits the relaxation, there will be no purpose of the rule. Every Government servant on his retirement will claim such expectation. In the larger public interest, the prayer of the applicant cannot be accepted.
10. There being no merit in this application, it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.