V. M. Syam Kumar, J.

1. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 61 days. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made to condone the delay. Hence the delay is condoned.

2. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 19.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.14428 of 2024. Appellants are the respondents in the said W.P.(C).

3. The W.P.(C) was filed by the respondent herein seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd appellant to grant 5% increase in remuneration on renewal of satisfactory completion of one year service as envisaged in Ext.P2 office memorandum issued by the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences.

4. The learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition in part and had directed the appellants to pay the difference in respect of the increase of 5% on a yearly basis on remuneration paid to the respondent with effect from 24.07.2018 till 24.11.2022. It was also directed that the said difference of increase in remuneration should be calculated and paid to the respondent within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. Aggrieved by the said judgment, appellants have filed this Writ Appeal.

5. Heard Sri.V.Girish Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Sri.B.Harish Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in rendering the impugned judgment insofar as the scope and import of Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) office memoranda issued by the appellants were not properly appreciated. It is contended that, as evident from Ext.R1(a), the appellant Ministry had extended the benefit of enhancement of monthly remuneration from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- for Office Assistants. In furtherance of the same, vide Ext.R1(b), the 1st appellant had implemented the decision reflected in Ext.R1(a).  Respondent had been granted the said benefit from 15.06.2018 i.e., the date on which Ext.R1(a) had been issued by the Ministry. It is contended that, though by Ext.R1(b), an additional benefit for contractual engagements, namely 5% annual increase in monthly remuneration upon renewal of contract after successful completion of one year was introduced vide Ext.R1(b) dated 23.10.2018, the same was not intended to have any retrospective effect. The respondent became entitled to the benefit only upon renewal on a date subsequent to 23.10.2018. Since the respondent’s contract was last renewed on 24.07.2018, that is before the issuance of Ext.R1(b), the provision for a 5% enhancement did not apply to him. The respondent became eligible for annual enhancement only on 24.07.2019 i.e., the date of renewal following the issuance of Ext.R1(b). It is submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in extending the benefit from 24.07.2018 onwards to the respondent and by granting retrospective effect to 5% of enhancement provided in Ext.R1(b), the learned Single Judge had acted unreasonably and contrary to law. It is thus prayed that the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this Writ Appeal may be set aside.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge had been validly rendered and that the same does not call for any interference.

It is submitted that the learned Single Judge had specifically noted Ext.R1(a) dated 15.06.2018, which issued by the 1st appellant with respect to revision of remuneration of contractual staff in research counsels which specifically envisaged a revised remuneration per month for persons falling within Sl.No.5 therein at Rs.30,000/-. It had been specifically provided therein that in case of the contract being renewed, after satisfactory completion of one year of service, 5% increase in the remuneration shall be given every year. It is thus prayed that there is no cause or reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

8. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth.

9. The question that comes up for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the entitlement of the respondent to 5% increase in the remuneration commences from the date on which he had completed one year of service ie., from 24.07.2018 onwards.

10. In Ext.R1 (a) dated 15.06.2018, it has been specifically stated that “In case the contract is renewed after satisfactory completion of one year service, 05% increase in the remuneration shall be given every year.” Thus, the relevant period to apply 05% enhancement is to be calculated from the ‘completion of one year of service’. In Ext.R1(b) dated 23.10.2018, it had been reiterated that rates are effective from 15.06.2018 and in case the contract is renewed after satisfactory completion of one year service, 05% increase in the remuneration shall be given every year.

11. The respondent's initial period of appointment was from 24.07.2017. It is very evident that what is insisted on is completion of one year ‘in service’. The one year of completion in service, as regards the respondent, was attained on 24.07.2018. Hence, the learned Single Judge rightly concluded that the respondent completed one year in contractual appointment on 24.07.2018 and therefore, he would be entitled to 5% yearly increase with effect from 24.07.2018.

12. We see no reason to interfere with the said finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge, which is valid and proper. No illegality or perversity has been shown to justify an interference with the impugned judgment to the extent it allowed the prayer of the respondent in the W.P.(C).

                  The Writ Appeal is dismissed.