NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J. - (1.)The petitioner who was working as PTI Teacher with the Government Higher Secondary School, BALCO. He retired from service w.e.f. 30/6/2022, after the completion of age of superannuation ie., 62 years.
(2.)The petitioner's grievance in brief is this, that he is entitled to get annual increment on 1st July every year, but since the petitioner has been retired from service on 30/6/2022, his annual increment from 1/7/2022 to 31/7/2022 has not been considered. He would further submits that he has already worked for the entire period, he is entitled for grant of annual increment. He would further submits that similar issued was dealt by Hon'ble Division Bench of M.P. High Court in WA No. 363/2020 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has held as under.
"The question is having worked for entire year to the satisfaction of the employer whether an incumbent can be denied the benefit merely because he stood retired on a day early to the date of increment. An issue of similar nature came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in S. Banerjee v. Union of India : AIR 1990 SC 285 wherein the petitioner who having retired on January 1st 1986 claimed the benefit under paragraph 17.3 of Fourth Central Pay Commission Report Part II, held that-

"6. Under paragraph 17.3, the benefits recommended will be avail to employees retiring during the period, January 1, 1986 to September 30, 1986. So the employees retiring on January, 1986 will be entitled to the benefit under paragraph 17.3. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner has retired on January 1, 1986. We have already extracted the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court with effect from the forenoon of January 1, 1986. It is true that in view of the proviso to rule 5(2) of the Rules, the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary for the day on which he actually retired. But, in our opinion, that has no bearing on the question as to the date of retirement. Can it be said that the petitioner retired on December 31, 1985? The answer must be in the negative. Indeed, Mr. Anti Dev Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, frankly conceded that the petitioner could not be said to have retired from the service of this Court on December 31, 1985. Then it must be held that the petitioner had retired with effect from January 1, 1986 and that is also the order of this Court dated December 6, 1985. It may be that the petitioner had retired with effect from the forenoon of January 1, 1986 as per the said order of this Court, that is to say, as soon as January 1, 1986 had commenced the petitioner retired. But, nevertheless, it has to be said that the petitioner had retired on January 1, 1986 and not on December 31, 1985. In the circumstances, the petitioner comes within the purview of para-graph 17.3 of the recommendations of the Pay Commission."

(3.)The Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal v. The Registrar decided on 15/9/2017 in WP No. 15732 of 2017 has held in para 6 and 7 which read as under.
"6. In the case on hand, the petitioner got retired on 30/6/2013. As per the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the increment has to be given only on 1/7/2013, but he had been superannuated on 30/6/2013 itself. The judgment referred to by the petitioner in State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department and others v. M. Balasubramaniam, reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 6525, was passed under similar circumstances on 20/9/2012, wherein this Court confirmed the order passed in W.P. No. 8440 of 2011 allowing the writ petition filed by the employee, by observing that the employee had completed one full year of service from 1/4/2002 to 31/3/2003, which entitled him to the benefit of increment which accrued to him during that period.

7. The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30/6/2013, but the increment fell due on 1/7/2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dtd. 21/3/2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 1/7/2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs."