Judgment : 1. In view of commonality of the issue involved in these two writ petitions, the same are decided by this common order. 2. While the petitioner in W.P. No.7111 of 2013, working as Sub Assistant Registrar, got superannuated on 30.06.2009 (A.N.), the petitioner in W.P. No.7110 of 2013, working as Sub-Assistant Registrar, got superannuated on 30.06.2010 (A.N.). The annual increment to the employees becomes due on the 1st July of every year for the persons who are in service. The petitioners claim that since they have retired on the 1st July (F.N.) in the respective years, they are entitled to annual increment. The petitioners preferred writ petitions in the year 2012, being W.P. Nos.9524 of 2012 and 9523 of 2012 respectively, seeking release of annual increment, which became due for the service rendered by them from 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2009 and 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2010, respectively. 3. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 14.06.2012, without going into the merits of the case, disposed of the said writ petitions, directing the Registrar General, Madras High Court, to consider the petitioners' representations dated 08.09.2011, filed by the petitioners and pass a reasoned order. Thus, the second respondent, the Registrar General, by the impugned order dated 04.01.2013, rejected the petitioners' representations on the following reasons: "1. The petitioners were not in service on 01.07.2009 and 01.07.2010 respectively, since they had retired one day before the date of increment, viz., on 30.06.2009 A.N. and 30.06.2010 A.N. respectively; 2. There is no specific Government Order granting provision for sanctioning the annual periodical increment after retirement to the Government servants." 4. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the second respondent, the instant writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, as aforestated. 5. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the annual increment became due for the past service rendered by the petitioners for the period 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2009 and 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2010, respectively. The petitioners, in fact, retired on the 1st July (F.N.) and as such, they are entitled to increment as laid down by the Supreme Court in S. Banerjee vs. Union of India and Others, ( AIR 1990 SC 285 ). 6. The petitioners, in fact, retired on the 1st July (F.N.) and as such, they are entitled to increment as laid down by the Supreme Court in S. Banerjee vs. Union of India and Others, ( AIR 1990 SC 285 ). 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent, relying on the impugned order dated 04.01.2013 and the counter affidavit, would submit that the petitioners retired on 30.06.2009 (A.N.) and 30.06.2010 (A.N.) respectively and not on 01.07.2009 (F.N.) and 01.07.2010 (F.N.) respectively, as pleaded by them. The annual increment becomes due and applicable only to those employees, who are in service on the 1st July of every year. Since the petitioners have retired on 30.06.2009 (A.N.) and 30.06.2010 (A.N.) respectively, in the respective years, they are not entitled to the annual increment, which became due in July of the years. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the decision of the Supreme Court, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is not applicable to the facts of the instant cases, as, in that case, the petitioner retired on 01.01.1986 (F.N.) and not on 31.12.1985 and thus, the said decision is distinguishable on facts. 7. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents extensively. 8. In S. Banerjee vs. Union of India and Others (supra), the petitioner retired on 01.01.1986 (F.N.) and not on 31.12.1985 and as such, it was held that the relevant period was 01.01.1986. Thus, the petitioner therein was entitled to the benefit which accrued from 01.01.1985. But, in the case in hand, as is evident from the impugned order dated 04.01.2013, a reference has been made to the orders of superannuation, clearly stating that the petitioners retired on 30.06.2009 (A.N.) and on 30.06.2010 (A.N.) respectively and not on 01.07.2009 (F.N.) and 01.07.2010 (F.N.) respectively. The increments became due only on 01.07.2009 and 01.07.2010 respectively when the petitioners were not in service and the employer-employee relationship, came to an end on the previous day. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to the said increment, as pleaded by their learned counsel. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 04.01.2013 passed by the second respondent. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.