The Chief Postmaster General v. The Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and W.M.P.No.6203 of 2024
1. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam - 611 003.
..Petitioners Vs
1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench High Court Building, Chennai - 600 104.
2. M.Krishnamoorthy S/o.Muniyandi ..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Tribunal in its impugned order dated 08.02.2023 in O.A.No.275/2020 passed by the first respondent Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and quash the same.
For Petitioners :
Mr.M.Karthikeyan For Respondents :
Tribunal [R1] No appearance [R2] *****
ORDER
(Made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, passed in O.A.No.275/2020 dated 08.02.2023.
2. The respondent instituted the original application to direct the appellants herein to sanction one increment for the completed period of one year (viz., 01.07.2006 to 30.06.2007) with consequential pensionary relief and by setting aside the rejection order dated 13.03.2019.
3. The facts in brief would show that the respondent/employee retried from service on 30.06.2007. Increment due to the respondent was on 01.06.2006. On the said basis, the respondent made a claim that one increment for the completed one year of service is to be sanctioned. Since the writ petitioner/Union of India rejected the claim, the respondent filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the application on the ground that the issue relating to grant of one increment on completion of one year period of service is no longer res integra and by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the order passed by the Tribunal granted the relief.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India would submit that the actual facts were not considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
No doubt, the respondent retired from service on 30.06.2007 but before two months from his date of retirement he was promoted to the post of HSG I cadre on 29.05.2007. On the date of his promotion, one increment at the rate of 3% was given to him and accordingly, his pay was fixed under Rule 26 of FRSR. Since the respondent was promoted to the post of higher post within the said period he is not entitled to avail any further increment in respect of the post held by him prior to his promotion. The said factum though stated in the counter affidavit by the writ petitioner, it was not considered by the Tribunal. The writ petitioner, in their counter affidavit, has stated as follows: "His increment for the year 2006 was given on 01.07.2006 with date of next increment as 01.07.2007. But before 01.07.2007, he was promoted to HSG I cadre on 29.
05.2007. Thus, on the date of his promotion itself one increment at the rate of 3% was given to him. Thus, in compliance with Rule 26 of FRSR, his pay was fixed." The respondent has not completed services of one year in the same post in view of the promotion and one increment granted at the rate of 3% in compliance with Rule 26 of FRSR. Thus, he is not entitled for any further increment as such sought for in the original application. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.275/2020, dated 08.02.2023, is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.)
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
gm To The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, High Court Building, Chennai - 600 104.
04-06-2026