Calculation Of An Employee's Age - Constitution Of India, 1950

CALCULATION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S AGE - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLE 226 - KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES SERVICE REGULATIONS - REGULATION 40(1) - GRANT OF ANNUAL INCREMENT - (In calculating an employee's' age the day of his birth must be count
The short question involved in this case was "Whether the petitioners who retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation can claim the benefit of an annual increment, which did not accrue while they were in service." The facts which gave rise to the said question are to the effect that the petitioners retired as employees of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. on different dates.
They claimed that they have rendered 365 days of continuous service as on the date of their respective retirement and therefore, they are entitled for the benefits of annual increment which became due on the following day of the retirement. Per contra, it was contended that the petitioners retired from service before the date on which their annual increment became due.
The High Court observed that a person who joins service would be entitled to future increment in the scale of pay on the anniversary day of his appointment. In other words, the future increment would be reckoned on the first day of the month after completion of one year from the date of the appointment.
The High Court observed that the term "Increment" has a definite concept in the Service Laws and it is an increase or addition in a fixed scale. The High Court referred to several decisions including the case of Prabhu Dayal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Another 1986 II CLR 260 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court held that in calculating a person's age, the day of his birth must be counted as a whole day and he attains the specified age on the day preceding the anniversary of his birth day.
It was further observed that in the present case, there is no dispute that on the date on which the petitioners reached the age of superannuation, the increment which they are claiming had not accrued.
Therefore, there is no merit in the claim that they ought to have been granted annual increment for the period of service rendered till the date of retirement. In view of this position. the High Court dismissed the petition.
- G. Raju S/o K. Gangaiah and Ors. v. Director (Admn. and H.R.) KPTCL, Bangalore & Ors. H. C. Karn. 2017, 
THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

No comments:

Post a Comment