JUDGMENT : C. Jayachandran, J. A common issue, which surfaced for consideration in as many as 16 Original Applications, has been disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench as per a Common Order dated 1.11.2022, whereby all the Original Applications were dismissed. The said Common Order is under challenge in the original petitions afore-referred. The common issue, which was considered by the Tribunal, the correctness of which we are called upon to decide, has the overtone, more of a legal nature, than factual, based on interpretation of the relevant Rules. The issue pertains to the question whether a Government servant, who retired on the last working day of the preceding month, but whose annual increment falls due on the first of the succeeding month, is entitled for such increment? The legal imbroglio received different interpretation and answer by the various High Courts across the country, including that of ours. However, the issue has been finally settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by virtue of the authoritative pronouncement made in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and Others [2023 SCC OnLine SC 401], whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised the claim of the retired employees, on an interpretation of the relevant statutory rule and accepting the views expressed in the judgments in this regard by the High Courts of Allahabad, Gujarath, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Madras; and disapproving the judgments which took a contrary view by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and that of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. However, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents seriously persuaded us to draw a factual distinction based on the relevant Rules applicable, wherefore, we are impelled to consider the issue in detail. 2. Although we are dealing with 8 different Original Petitions, a separate assessment of the facts in each of these cases is not required, inasmuch as the issue for consideration in all these cases, as already indicated, is common. Suffice to notice that the petitioners herein have retired from their respective establishments on attaining the age of superannuation. As on the date of their retirement, they have earned an annual increment, which, however, is due and payable only on the very next day. Suffice to notice that the petitioners herein have retired from their respective establishments on attaining the age of superannuation. As on the date of their retirement, they have earned an annual increment, which, however, is due and payable only on the very next day. The request of the petitioners to reckon the annual increments for the purpose of retiral benefits did not find favour with the respondents/employers. They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench by filing the subject Original Applications. However, the O.As. were dismissed by the common impugned order by the Tribunal. The Tribunal took note of the relevant Rule, which contemplates grant of annual increment on first July or January, as the case may be, to arrive at a conclusion that employees concerned must continue as on the said date to claim the benefit of the annual increment, wherefore, an employee, who stood retired on the previous day, is not entitled for the same. The Tribunal also took note of the judgments rendered by the various High Courts and chose to toe in line with the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Hari Prakash v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others [2020 SCC OnLine HP 2362]. The Tribunal also followed the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhavsingh Tomar and Others v. M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. and Others [2020 SCC OnLine MP 4360] and also that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Principal Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh and another v. C. Subba Rao [ 2005 (2) ALT 25 ]. In dismissing the claim, the Tribunal also did not choose to follow the judgment of the Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal v. The Registrar and Ors. [CDJ 2017 MHC 6274]. The trump card of the petitioners/retired employees before us was the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani (supra), wherein the very issue is seen addressed elaborately, after taking note of the views of the various High Courts. The relevant Rule, which was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was Regulation No.40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997, which is extracted here below:- "Drawals and postponements of increments 40(1) An increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned. An increment that has accrued shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment that has accrued shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment may be withheld from an employee by the competent authority, if his conduct has not been good, or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an increment, the withholding authority shall state the period for which it is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments." 3. Based on the above Rule, it was argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an increment accrues only from the day following that on which it is earned and therefore, the employee must necessarily be in service as on the date on which the increment accrues. An employee, who stood retired on the previous day, is not entitled for the benefit was the contention raised. Another contention put forward was that annual increment is in the form of a good service which is an incentive for the concerned employee to serve effectively, as also, to render good service, which facility cannot be contemplated for an employee who is not in service. Relying upon the expression "accrue", as defined in Law Lexicon, it was argued that the word "accrue" means, to come into existence as an enforceable claim or right, based upon which, the argument was that the increment accrued only on the day following the retirement of the employees concerned and hence they are not entitled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court started addressing the issue from paragraph no.6 onwards. In paragraph no.6.3 the Supreme Court took stock of the contrary views expressed by the different High Courts on the issue. While, the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh (Full Bench), Himachal Pradesh and Kerala took a view against the entitlement of the employees, the High Courts of Madras, Delhi, Allahabad, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Gujarath have taken a view in support of the employees' claim. In paragraph no.6.4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the argument that an increment is only an incentive to encourage an employee to perform well, which facility cannot be extended to a retired employee. In considering the issue as to whether an increment earned as on the date of retirement, but which accrues only on the next day, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph no.6.5, adopted a purposive interpretation of the provision, the relevant findings of which are extracted here below:- "6.5. In considering the issue as to whether an increment earned as on the date of retirement, but which accrues only on the next day, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph no.6.5, adopted a purposive interpretation of the provision, the relevant findings of which are extracted here below:- "6.5. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that as the increment has accrued on the next day on which it is earned and therefore, even in a case where an employee has earned the increment one day prior to his retirement but he is not in service the day on which the increment is accrued is concerned, while considering the aforesaid issue, the object and purpose of grant of annual increment is required to be considered. A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (one year) with good conduct efficiently. Merely because, the government servant has retired on the very next day, how can he be denied the annual increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to for rendering the service with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding one year." 4. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the findings of the Delhi High Court in Gopal Singh v. Union of India and others [2020 SCC OnLine Del 2640] and that of the Allahabad High Court in Nand Vijay Singh and others v. Union of India and others [2021 SCC OnLine All 1090] and upheld the similar views expressed by the High Courts of Gujarath, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Madras. It was specifically found that denying the benefit which has been earned by an employee for reason of not being in service on the date on which it accrues would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically held in paragraph no.6.7 that it does not approve the contrary views taken by (1) the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Principal Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh and another v. C. Subba Rao [ 2005 (2) ALT 25 : 2005 (2) L.L.N. 592]; (2) the Kerala High Court in Union of India and another v. Pavithran [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 5922 : (2023) 1 KLT 200 ] and (3) the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Hari Prakash v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others [2020 SCC OnLine HP 2362]. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal before it, confirming the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, thereby granting the benefit of annual increment to the employees. For the sake of completion, we take note that C.P. Mundinamani (supra) has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sidharaj & Ors. [S.L.P.Nos.5699/23 and connected cases]. 5. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents/employers argued that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has to be read and understood in the context of the specific Rule which was considered in that judgment, that is to say, Regulation no.40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997 and that the dictum cannot be extended as such to the fact situation herein, since the Rules in question are couched in a different language. In elaboration of the point, learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Rules 17 and 24 of the Fundamental Rules, to contend that a provision similar to that of Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations is not present in the Fundamental Rules. A provision similar to that in the said Regulations stipulating that the increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned is conspicuously absent in Fundamental Rule nos.17 and 24. Emphasis was made to the provision in Fundamental Rule no.17 stipulating as to when a Government servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowances and when he or she will cease to draw the same. Emphasis was made to the provision in Fundamental Rule no.17 stipulating as to when a Government servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowances and when he or she will cease to draw the same. The expressions "accrues", "earned" and "drawn", as employed in the Karnataka Regulations, is not seen employed in the Fundamental Rules. Instead, the Fundamental Rules employ the words "draw", "begin to draw", "cease to draw", which leaves no room for any doubt that a person in the status of a retired employee cannot claim the benefit of an increment due after the date of retirement. 6. Our attention was also invited to Rules 33 and 34 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, which deals with emoluments and average emoluments. Emphasising on the proviso to Note I to Rule 33, it was argued that any increment, not referred to in Note 4, will not form part of the emoluments. Note 4 deals with an increment earned by the Government servant who was on earned leave, immediately before his retirement/death, which is not the fact situation in the instant case. Similar proviso regulates the case with respect to average emoluments dealt with in Rule 34. On such premise, it was argued that C.P. Mundinamani (supra) cannot govern the instant facts. 7. Per contra, all these arguments/claims were seriously refuted by Sri. C.S. Gopalakrishnan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 8. For a correct appreciation of the specific issues addressed before us it is necessary to note the changes effected to Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 pursuant to the VIIth Central Pay Commission Recommendation. Rule 10 as it stood based on the VIth Central Pay Commission Recommendation reads as follows:- "10. Date of next increment in the revised pay structure-There will be a uniform date of annual increment, viz 1st July of every year. Employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st July will be eligible to be granted the increment. The first increment after fixation of pay on 1.1.2006 in the revised pay structure will be granted on 1.7.2006 for those employees for whom the date of next increment was between 1st July, 2006 to 1st January 2007." 9. The amended Rule pursuant to the VIIth Central Pay Commission Recommendation reads as follows:- “10. The first increment after fixation of pay on 1.1.2006 in the revised pay structure will be granted on 1.7.2006 for those employees for whom the date of next increment was between 1st July, 2006 to 1st January 2007." 9. The amended Rule pursuant to the VIIth Central Pay Commission Recommendation reads as follows:- “10. Date of next increment in revised pay structure.- (1) There shall be two dates for grant of increment namely, 1st January and 1st July of every year, instead of existing date of 1st July: Provided that an employee shall be entitled to only one annual increment either on 1st January or 1st July depending on the date of his appointment, promotion or grant of financial upgradation. (2) The increment in respect of an employee appointed or promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) during the period between the 2nd day of January and 1st day of July (both inclusive) shall be granted on 1st day of January and the increment in respect of an employee appointed or promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under MACPS during the period between the 2nd day of July and 1st day of January (both inclusive) shall be granted on 1st day of July. Illustration: (a) In case of an employee appointed or promoted in the normal hierarchy or under MACPS during the period between the 2nd day of July, 2016 and the 1st day of January, 2017, the first increment shall accrue on the 1st day of July 2017 and thereafter it shall accrue after one year on annual basis: (b) In case of an employee appointed or promoted in the normal hierarchy or under MACPS during the period between 2nd day of January 2016 and 1st day of July, 2016, who did not draw any increment on 1st day of July, 2016, the next increment shall accrue on 1st day of January 2017 and thereafter it shall accrue after one year on annual basis: Provided that in the case of employees whose pay in the revised pay structure has been fixed as on 1st day of January, the next increment in the Level in which the pay was so fixed as on 1st day of January, 2016 shall accrue on 1st day of July, 2016: Provided further that the next increment after drawal of increment on 1st day of July, 2016 shall accrue on 1st day of July, 2017. (3) Where two existing Grades in hierarchy are merged and the junior Government servant in the lower Grade happens to draw more pay in the corresponding Level in the revised pay structure than the pay of the senior Government servant, the pay of the senior government servant shall be stepped up to that of his junior from the same date and he shall draw next increment in accordance with this rule." 10. Rule 10 deals with the date on which an annual increment is payable to the employee. The rule, as it originally stood, contemplates a uniform date of first July of every year, whereas, the amended Rule pursuant to the VIIth pay commission recommendation contemplates two dates for grant of annual increment, namely, first January and first July of every year. It was provided that an employee shall be entitled to only one annual increment, either on first January or first July, depending upon the date of his appointment, promotion, etc. The amended Rule came into effect from 1.1.2016, after which date the petitioners herein have admittedly retired on superannuation. Rule 10(2) employs the expression "shall be granted". 11. It was provided that an employee shall be entitled to only one annual increment, either on first January or first July, depending upon the date of his appointment, promotion, etc. The amended Rule came into effect from 1.1.2016, after which date the petitioners herein have admittedly retired on superannuation. Rule 10(2) employs the expression "shall be granted". 11. We notice that the language employed in the instant Rule does not make much of a difference from the language employed in C.P. Mundinamani (supra), or for that matter, the Rule which was the subject matter of interpretation by the various High Courts. The factual premise to the effect that an employee is entitled to an annual increment either on the first of January or on the first of July every year is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the employees/petitioners before us would have been entitled to the annual increment on the next day of their retirement, had they continued in service. The short question, which required to be focused, is whether the employee would become dis-entitled for the benefit of annual increment only for reason of their retirement on superannuation a day before the date on which the annual increment is payable/to be granted. Dehors the minor difference in the language employed, the issue which was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani (supra) and the instant issue before us is one and the same. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.6.5 had gone into the object and purpose of grant of annual increment, to find that an increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in an year/specified period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to find that the moment a Government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct in a time scale, he is entitled to the benefit of annual increment and that merely because the Government servant has retired a day prior to the date on which the benefit is due, the entitlement cannot be deprived. This logic and dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot undergo any change on account of the minor difference in the language employed as between the Karnataka Regulations and the Fundamental Rules and Rule 10 of the CCS (Pension) Rules in question. This logic and dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot undergo any change on account of the minor difference in the language employed as between the Karnataka Regulations and the Fundamental Rules and Rule 10 of the CCS (Pension) Rules in question. As a matter of fact, the Karnataka Regulations contain a stricter provision, wherein it is explicitly stated that an increment though earned, accrues only on a particular day, whereas, in Rule 10, the provision is only to the effect that an increment shall be granted on a particular day. We could see no distinction worth the name as between the two Rules, so as to dislodge the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking stock of the divergent views of the various High Courts of the country. 12. The argument raised based on the proviso to Note I of Rule 33 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules is that any increment other than the one referred to in Note 4, which is not actually drawn, shall not form part of the emoluments for the purpose of pension. We notice that the said argument is attractive in the first blush. Rule 33 of the CCS (Pension) Rules is extracted below:- "Rule 33 33. Emoluments The expression ‘emoluments’ means basic pay as defined in Rule 9(21)(a)(i) of the Fundamental Rules which a Government servant was receiving immediately before his retirement or on the date of his death; and will also include non-practising allowance granted to Medical Officer in lieu of private practice. Explanation:—Stagnation increment shall be treated as emoluments for calculation of retirement benefits. Note 1 - If a Government servant immediately before his retirement or death while in service had been absent from duty on leave for which leave salary is payable or having been suspended had been reinstated without forfeiture of service, the emoluments which he would have drawn had he not been absent from duty or suspended shall be the emoluments for the purposes of this rule: Provided that any increase in pay (other than the increment referred to in Note 4) which is not actually drawn shall not form part of his emoluments. Note 2 - Where a Government servant immediately before his retirement or death while in service had proceeded on leave for which leave salary is payable after having held a higher appointment, whether in an officiating or temporary capacity, the benefit of emoluments drawn in such higher appointment shall be given only if it is certified that the Government servant would have continued to hold the higher appointment but for his proceeding on leave. Note 3 - If a Government servant immediately before his retirement or death while in service had been absent from duty on extraordinary leave or had been under suspension, the period whereof does not count as service, the emoluments which he drew immediately before proceeding on such leave or being placed under suspension shall be the emoluments for the purposes of this rule. Note 4 - If a Government servant immediately before his retirement or death while in service, was on earned leave, and earned an increment which was not withheld, such increment, though not actually drawn, shall form part of his emoluments: Provided that the increment was earned during the currency of the earned leave not exceeding one hundred and twenty days, or during the first one hundred and twenty days of earned leave where such leave was for more than one hundred and twenty days.” 13. Here again, we cannot appreciate and recognise the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised the right of the employees based on a purposive interpretation based on the object and concept based upon which an annual increment is granted. This is all the more so, in view of the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, depriving the benefit, which emanates from a service which has been admittedly rendered, would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness, in the light of which, we can only find that the argument based on the proviso to Note I of Rule 33 is also squarely in the teeth of the arbitrariness and unreasonableness, as found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 14. In the result, these original petitions succeed and the impugned Common Order of the Tribunal is hereby set aside. We direct the respondents to grant one notional increment to the petitioners, as also, to revise their retiral benefits after including such annual increment. 14. In the result, these original petitions succeed and the impugned Common Order of the Tribunal is hereby set aside. We direct the respondents to grant one notional increment to the petitioners, as also, to revise their retiral benefits after including such annual increment. We direct that the above direction shall be complied within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petitions are allowed as indicated above.