Authority: High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong

Order Date: 29 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Union of India (represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Department of Mines) and officials of the Geological Survey of India (GSI) as petitioners; respondent Shri Rafique Uddin Barbhuiya, former Store Keeper, GSI.
  • Employment History: Appointed Store Clerk on 01‑07‑1997; promoted to Assistant Store Keeper (Technical) on 12‑01‑2005; promoted to Store Keeper on 04‑02‑2008; superannuated on 31‑12‑2023.
  • Petition before CAT: Respondent filed Original Application No. 40/72/2025 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, seeking a notional increment effective 01‑01‑2024 and a revised pension.
  • CAT Order: Ex‑parte order dated 20‑03‑2025 directed the respondents/petitioner to grant the notional increment as of 01‑01‑2024 and to issue revised PPOs within four months of receiving a certified copy of the order.
  • Writ Petition: Union of India filed WP(C) No. 371 of 2025 on 21‑07‑2026, seeking quash of the CAT order, arguing the premise was erroneous because the respondent’s next increment date, per his letter dated 16‑02‑2023, was 01‑07‑2024, not 01‑Jan‑2024.
  • Respondent’s Argument: Counsel Mr. A.R. Tabildar contended that the annual increment accrues from the date the employee earned the previous increment; since the respondent served six months after his last increment on 01‑07‑2023, a notional increment was justified.
  • Court’s Findings: The Court observed that the CAT had incorrectly assumed the date of next increment (DNI) to be 01‑Jan‑2024. The Court referred to Office Memorandum dated 31‑Jul‑2018 (F. No. 4‑21/2017‑IC/E.III(A)) which clarifies under Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 that increments are on 1 January or 1 July, with the next increment after a July increment accruing on the following July, subject to a six‑month qualifying service and thereafter a twelve‑month period.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court quashed and set aside the CAT’s ex‑parte order dated 20‑03‑2025.
  • The petition was disposed of without any costs to either party.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Government Employee Benefits