Order Can’t Be Disregarded By Sundry Officer: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹50k Cost On Govt For Denying Notional Increment To RPF Employees
The Allahabad High Court allowed a Writ Petition filed by twelve RPF employees who got retired from service during different years, but on June 30th.
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Central Government for denying notional increment to the employees of the Railway Protection Force (RPF).
The Court was dealing with a Writ Petition filed by twelve RPF employees who got retired from service during different years, but on June 30th.
A Single Bench of Justice J.J. Munir observed, “An order cannot be disregarded by a sundry officer of the government, saying that he will disregard the law laid down by a Constitutional Court in a judgment, and more than that, a writ inter partes awaiting a policy decision of the Government. It is all the more contumacious on the part of the Director General, RPF, Railway Board to say in paragraph No. 8 of the personal affidavit that he is “not in a position to extend benefit of one notional increment to the petitioners who retired on the 30th June as per the judgment.”
Advocate Ramesh Chandra Tiwari appeared on behalf of the Petitioners while Central Government Counsel (CGC) Sudarshan Singh appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
Since the Petitioners i.e., RPF employees were not in service on July 1st of the year in which they retired, the annual increment they earned for the period commencing July 1st of the year preceding their retirement and June 30th was denied to them on the ground that they were not in service on July 1st of the year they retired when the increment for the relative year would fall due. In substance, therefore, the Petitioners claimed that although they earned the annual increment during the relative year of retirement, working for the entire period of one year from July 1st to June 30th of the year they retired, it was denied to them on the specious ground that on the day the increment actually fell due, they were not in service.
The Petitioners prayed that a Mandamus be issued, ordering the Respondents-authorities to grant one notional increment to them as on July 1st of the respective years of their retirement, which, in each case, fell on June 30th of that year, for the limited purpose of determining their pensionary benefits. They further sought a command to the Respondents to re-determine the basic pay payable to each of the Petitioners, and after grant of notional increment, revise their pension benefits and pay arrears accrued along with an interest.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “It is true that every litigant has the right to seek a clarification of an order passed by a Court, even a Constitutional Court, but it is not open to any officer of the Government to say that the benefit of the Supreme Court's judgment or compliance of the High Court's order, if not stayed or set aside by the Supreme Court, will depend upon the policy decision of the Department of Personnel & Training3, Government of India.”
The Court added that the Government of India cannot sit in Judgment on a writ of the Court, once issued and a writ stops only if it is stayed in competent proceedings, like an Appeal, if allowed from the Order or a review or a clarification or some such proceedings.
“The effect of the interim order would, therefore, be that the petitioners would be entitled to their notional increment for the respective years in which they superannuated on the 30th June of that year, but the revised pension in terms of the notional increment would be payable with effect from 01.05.2023”, it held.
The Court further noted that the Petitioners would be entitled to receive notional increments for the respective years in which they superannuated on the June 30th, but they would be paid pension on the basis of their revised emoluments with the notional increments added with effect from May 1st, 2023.
“Their current pension would be revised accordingly forthwith and all arrears would be paid to them with effect from 01.05.2023 within a period of three months of the date of communication of this order to the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, New Delhi, the Director General, RPF, Railway Board, New Delhi, the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, the Principal Chief Karmik Adhikari, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and the Principal Finance Advisor/Chief Accounts Officer, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. The period of three months shall be reckoned from the date the order is received by any of the aforesaid officers”, it directed.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition, issued Mandamus, and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Respondents.
Cause Title- R.K. Prasad and Others v. Union of India and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:34402)
