JUDGMENT : Amit Rawal, J. 1. Present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment of the writ court dated 12.02.2020 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent – petitioner claiming the following reliefs: i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to draw and disburse the amounts towards enhanced performance Incentive certified for payment as per Ext.P1 and P2 totaling Rs.9,44,960/- with interest forthwith. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider. Ext.P3 to P5 and disburse the amounts certified for payments towards performance incentive as per Ext.P1 and P2 with interest at the earliest. iii) issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and iv) award costs to the petitioner. 2. The case of the respondent – petitioner in brief was that he retired from the appellant – company while working as Development Officer on 31.12.2015 and at retirement, stood second in the State in the matter of achieving the business targets. 3. Marketing department had framed an insurance scheme which was implemented by the Insurance Company specifying that the development officers are entitled to incentives for performance based on the salary and profit achievement. In the year 2013-14, based upon the operating surplus, was declared eligible for the incentive ie., 5% of the operating surplus or twenty(24) months last drawn basic pay during the year. Basic pay of the respondent-petitioner accordingly was revised to Rs.60,890/- (Rupees sixty thousand eight hundred ninety only) at the time of retirement. 4. Prior to the pay revision for the year 2013- 14 respondent-petitioner was entitled for incentives amounting to Rs.7,45,800/- (Rupees seven lakhs forty five thousand eight hundred only), as, on pay revision his salary was increased and balance payable was Rs.6,76,470/- (Rupees six lakhs seventy six thousand four hundred seventy only) which was calculated, verified and counter signed by the appellants – respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the writ court - on 16.06.2016 as per the performance sheet for the year 2013-14 Ext.P1 and similarly for the year 2014- 15, as Ext.P2. Based upon Exts.P1 and P2, request was made to the appellants – respondents for disbursement of arrears of incentives vide Ext.P3 and P4, but no action was taken. Based upon Exts.P1 and P2, request was made to the appellants – respondents for disbursement of arrears of incentives vide Ext.P3 and P4, but no action was taken. Another representation was submitted to the respondent No.1 in the writ petition Ext.P5 and thereafter, approached this Court with the aforementioned reliefs. 5. Insurance company opposed the aforementioned prayer by filing counter and submitted that development officer was eligible for cash incentive on achievement of minimum growth rate of 7.5% or Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) in Scheduled Premium Income over last year Scheduled Premium Income and operates within the stipulated cost ratio and generates minimum operating surplus of 20% Scheduled Premium Income. The incentive payment shall be 5% of the operating surplus generated during the relevant performance year which shall not exceed an amount equivalent to 24 times of the last drawn basic pay by such development officer. 5. Additional documents have been placed on record vide I.A.No.2 of 2024 as Annexure-A3 and Annexure- A4 to contend that the Scheme in force upto 2000 had undergone various amendments till 2016. The wage revision in question was made on 23.01.2016 and consequently an amendment was carried out to Annexure– A3 Scheme. Learned Single Bench, on analysis of the aforementioned pleadings and by noticing the arguments, particularly paragraph 15(b) of the amended scheme introducing the single incentive to the development officers, allowed the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – Insurance Company submitted that right for receiving the incentive is not statutory and cannot be imposed upon the employer to form part of the duty. Learned Single Judge ought to have found that calculation of incentive was based upon the examination of various factual aspects. Clause 7A (in para 3) of Annexue-A2 specified the exact amount which was payable as arrears when basic pay had been revised. Retrospective fixation of basic pay is a legal fiction and impermissible. The pay revision was done in 2016 whereas the respondent – petitioner had retired on 31.12.2015. Therefore, based on subsequent events respondent – petitioner cannot claim re-determination of the incentive based upon 1976 Scheme. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and appraised the paper book. 8. Clause 15B of the revised Scheme reads as under: “15B. The pay revision was done in 2016 whereas the respondent – petitioner had retired on 31.12.2015. Therefore, based on subsequent events respondent – petitioner cannot claim re-determination of the incentive based upon 1976 Scheme. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and appraised the paper book. 8. Clause 15B of the revised Scheme reads as under: “15B. Incentive: (1) A Development Officer shall be eligible for Incentive only if he, (a) achieves a minimum growth of 7.5 percent or sixty thousand rupees, which is less. (b) Operates within the stipulated cost ratio. (c) generates a minimum operating surplus of twenty percent of the Schedule Premium income in a performance year. (2) The Incentive payable to a Development Officer shall be 5% of the operating surplus generated during the relevant performance year; Provided that such incentive shall not exceed an amount equivalent to 24 times of the last drawn basic pay by such Development Officer during the relevant performance year.” 9. From 2003 amended scheme, it is evident that the computation of incentive is not based upon the pre- revised pay. Originally the Scheme was amended in 1978 and the proviso was amended in 1995. A new method of calculation was introduced on pre-revised pay. In the 1996 amendment, it was limited to twelve(12) months whereas in 2003, to twenty four(24) months last drawn basic pay, without specifying that it should be in the pre-revised basic pay. 10. We specifically raised the query to the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants regarding the certificates Exts.P1 and P2 issued by the authorities, the answer was that they were not competent and in case there were not competent, no explanation has come-forth till the final hearing of the writ appeal why it was not withdrawn by complying the principles of natural justice. 11. Learned Single Bench noticing all these facts in paragraph No.15 to 18 of the judgment, observed as under: 15. Petitioner has claimed the incentive as admissible to him as per the 2003 amendment. His eligibility for the same was found by the respondents in Exts.P1 and P2. It is denied to him on the basis of the provisions which ceased to be in force. At any rate, the respondents have not pointed out any provision other than the provisio to para 15, which is already omitted from the scheme, in support of their stand. 16. It is denied to him on the basis of the provisions which ceased to be in force. At any rate, the respondents have not pointed out any provision other than the provisio to para 15, which is already omitted from the scheme, in support of their stand. 16. Eventhough the learned Standing Counsel submitted that Union of India is a necessary party in the writ petition, I do not find it necessary as petitioner is only seeking the incentive admissible to him as per the Scheme 1976 as amended in 2003. No other amendment relating to incentive is brought to my notice. The implementation of the Scheme is to be done by the respondents. 17. Even assuming that Exts.P1 and P2 are issued by authorities not competent, the petitioner is entitled to get the cash incentive in accordance with the provisions contained in clause 7 of Ext.P7 i.e., paragraph 15B of the 1976 Scheme as amended in 2003. The main objection raised by the respondents is that incentive cannot be calculated on the basis of a pay revision introduced subsequent to the relevant year though with retrospective effect. When the pay and allowances for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15 are paid to the petitioner and the terminal benefits are also paid on the basis of the pay revision effected with retrospective effect after fixing his pay in the revised scale, there is no justification in limiting the incentive reckoning the last drawn basic pay in the pre-revised scale. 18. The respondents do not have a case that the petitioner would not be eligible for incentive in accordance with the provisions in para 15B. Once he is found eligible, he becomes entitled to incentive at 5% of the operating surplus, with the only condition that it shall not exceed the 24 months' last drawn pay, as provided in para 15B. That last drawn basic pay can only be the last drawn basic pay in the revised scale, which he actually enjoyed though subsequent to the actual revision. In the above circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to get the balance incentive due to him, calculating the same at 5% of the operating surplus for the respective performance years with the only restriction that it shall not exceed 24 months' last drawn basic pay, which shall be reckoned in the revised scale, in which he was paid. In the above circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to get the balance incentive due to him, calculating the same at 5% of the operating surplus for the respective performance years with the only restriction that it shall not exceed 24 months' last drawn basic pay, which shall be reckoned in the revised scale, in which he was paid. Therefore there shall be a direction to the respondents to disburse the balance amount due to the petitioner accordingly, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. 12. We are of the view that such finding do not require any different interpretation than the one asked for in the present intra-court appeal. No ground for interference is made out. Appeal stands dismissed.