AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Shri Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
The present Original Application has been filed seeking pay protection on joining the Railways after having served in Coal India Limited (CIL), a Public Sector Undertaking. The said OA was decided by this Tribunal by its order dated 24th January, 2025, whereby the Tribunal directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant for grant of pay protection based on the services rendered by him in Coal India Limited, in terms of the directions contained therein.
The respondents moved the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur by filing Writ Petition No.4533/2025. The Hon'ble High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court are reproduced below:
"...3. The respondent herein approached the Tribunal by making the following prayers amongst others:
8(i) To avoid and declare that the OM dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure A-14) issued by the Government of India through the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training is prospective in nature and hence, not applicable to case of the Applicant:
8(ii) quash and set aside the order/communication 7.7.2023 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Principal Chief Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway/Respondent no.1 thereby, rejecting the claim/representation of the Applicant seeking pay protection and further direct the respondents to grant pay protection along with interest at the rate 9 percent per annum or any other rate within a stipulated time frame and this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.
4.The learned Tribunal recorded its findings in paras 12 to 15 while directing the petitioner to re-consider the case of the respondent for grant of pay protection after verifying the factual aspect of the probation period and its confirmation and if the applicant/respondent herein found entitled, then the benefit shall be extended. Findings recorded by the Tribunal in paras 12 to 15 are as under:
"12.The stand of the office respondents that the Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure A-14) in paragraph No.4 clearly provides that the benefit will be allowed irrespective of whether the post is filled by the Recruiting Agency on the basis of interview or Open Competitive Examination or combination of both. However, the said OM was made effective from the date of its issuance meaning thereby the benefit of said OM cannot be extended to such employees who have been appointed in Central Government prior to date of aforesaid OM and they are not entitled for any pay protection.
13.The argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, at the first look appears to be attractive, however, on deeper scrutiny, it is found that it would create Class within Class and, therefore, cannot be said to be a reasonable classification within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Meaning thereby, employees appointed prior to 13.08.2020 are not entitled for the benefit of pay protection, whereas the employees appointed on or after 13.08.2020 in the Central Government services from the Public Sector Undertakings are entitled for the benefit of pay protection. Therefore, the Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2020 is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India to that extent (Annexure A-14). Under these circumstances, the impugned communication dated 07.07.2023 (Annexure A-1) which was issued based upon OM dated 13.08.2020 is liable to be quashed and accordingly is hereby quashed.
14.From the record, although it is not in dispute that prior to joining in the Indian Railways Health Services as a Additional Divisional Medical Officer on 21.05.2022, applicant was serving with Coalfield India Limited (CIL) on the basis of appointment order dated 02.02.2019 after selection through UPSC, he was granted appointment through appointment letter dated 03.02.2020. However, looking to the appointment letter dated 02.02.2019 (Annexure A-3), it is not clear that what was the period of probation and whether at the time of joining in the Indian Railways, he has completed his probation period because the facts mentioned in paragraph No. 2(ii) in the case of Sanjog Kapoor (supra), it is specifically mentioned that the applicant in the said case had completed probation period successfully. Further, in paragraph No. 14 of the abovementioned case of Sanjog Kapoor (supra) clearly observes about probation period.
15.Under these circumstances, the present Original Application is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant for grant of pay protection after verifying the factual aspect of the probation period and its confirmation and if the applicant found entitled, then the benefit shall be extended."
5.From the prayer clauses, it is evident that no prayer for quashing and setting aside OM dated 13.08.2020 is made. Despite the same, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction to quash and set aside the OM dated 13.08.2020. In absence of such prayer, there was no occasion for the petitioner to argue before the Tribunal on the validity of OM dated 13.08.2020. Furthermore, despite prayer clause 8(i) of the respondent was to declare OM dated 13.08.2020 as prospective, the Tribunal has held contrary to the same and directed to re-consider the case of the respondent. Whereas, the order dated 07.07.2023 issued by the Dy. Chief Personnel Officer (Gaz.) holding that the OM dated 13.08.2020 is retrospective but not applicable to the respondent.
6.It is apparent on the face of the order impugned in this petition that the Tribunal has committed error in quashing the OM dated 13.08.2020 and further not considering the prayer clause 8(i) of the respondent in the right perspective.
7.In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the matter needs to be remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision after hearing the parties.
8.Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i)The impugned order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (Camp at Nagpur) in Original Application No.952 of 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii)Original Application No.952 of 2023 remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh after hearing the parties.
(iii)The Tribunal shall decide the matter expeditiously and in any case within three months from the date of production of copy of this order.
(iv)The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs."
The Original Application was thereafter listed for hearing on 10th April, 2026 when it was heard and reserved for orders.
There is no dispute with regard to the facts and pleadings of the applicant and the respondents. Therefore, the same are reproduced from the order of the Tribunal dated 24th January, 2025:
"2.Brief facts stated in the Original Application are that the applicant is a Doctor by profession, who has completed his MBBS Degree from a recognized Institute/College duly approved by the Medical Council of India as also, completed a Post Graduate Degree with three years post qualification experience connected with a specialty with hospital.
2(a). It is stated that in July, 2018, the applicant applied through Online Application process to the Coal India Limited (CIL) being a Public Sector Undertaking for the post of Medical Executive to work in their subsidiary companies/coalfield areas Hospitals/Dispensaries.
2(b). On 02.02.2019, CIL issued appointment letter to the applicant thereby, confirming appointment for the designation as Senior Medical Specialist in E4 Grade in Ophthalmology and that the applicant was entitled for Basic Pay of Rs.70,000/- with pay scale of Rs.70,000-2,00,000/-.
2(c). While the applicant has been working as Senior Medical Specialist at Barkuhi Hospital, Western Coal Field Limited, the applicant appeared for Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) examination in regard to the Combined Medical Services Examination, 2018 on 22.07.2018 and cleared the said examination on 27.08.2018. The applicant also cleared the interview and, thus, was selected to the post of Assistant Divisional Medical Officer (Group “A”) in Indian Railways on the basis of the Combined Medical Service Examinations, 2018. Thereafter, appointment order dated 03.02.2020 was issued to the applicant and, therefore, he has submitted technical resignation to CIL which was duly approved by CIL with effect from 16.05.2020 and, thereafter, on 21.05.2020, the applicant joined the Indian Railway Health Services (IRHS) as an Additional Divisional Medical Officer.
2(d). On 30.09.2020, the applicant sent a letter / representation to the Principal Chief Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway / respondent No.1 thereby, requesting for pay protection on account that the applicant was working with Coal India Limited being a Public Sector Undertaking paying Basic Pay of Rs.72,100/- and had been working from 06.02.2019 to 16.05.2020 and, therefore, requested that the pay should be fixed at Rs.73,200/- i.e. 10th cell in Level X of VII CPC which is the pay just below the last Basic Pay at Western Coalfield Limited (WCL).
2(e). It is stated that the Basic Pay of the applicant at Western Coal Limited was Rs.72,100/-. Thereafter, the applicant appeared and cleared the UPSC Examination and was directly selected / appointed to the post of Assistant Divisional Medical Officer (Group “A”) with the Indian Railways with a Basic Pay of Rs.56,100/- which being inferior to that what the applicant was availing at CIL / WCL. However, the representation was rejected by the impugned communication dated 07.07.2023 by holding that the applicant appointed on 21.05.2020 i.e. prior to issuance of OM dated 13.08.2020, thus, the same is not applicable to the applicant but, in spite of the same relied upon paragraph No.4 of the said OM and rejected the claim of the applicant holding that the IRHS Rules do not prescribe a requirement of minimum number of years of experience in a specified area from the field sources (Autonomous Bodies, PSU etc) for appointment under the method of direct recruit.
2(f). It is submitted that the Office Memorandum dated 10.07.1998 was issued providing the benefit of pay protection to the Government Servants by selection through UPSC subject to fulfillment of certain conditions viz., if selection through interview and not through Competitive Examination. Further, OM dated 13.08.2020 was issued by the Government of India through Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training reviewing the earlier memorandum dated 07.08.1989 and 10.07.1998 to support the contention of pay protection, the applicant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjog Kapoor Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition No.5518/2004 decided on 20.04.2007 reported in 2007 DGLS (Del) 810 and also the order passed by the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Devidata Satapatty Vs. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer and others in OA No.203/00650/2020 decided on 05.08.2022 and on that basis, the applicant has prayed for relief noted in the preceding paragraph.
After notice, the official respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA. It is submitted that the applicant joined as Senior Medical Specialist (EYE) at Barkuhi Hospital, Western Coal Field Limited 06.02.2019 and submitted his technical resignation on 03.02.2020, which was duly approved by Coal India Limited w.e.f. 16.05.2020.
3(a). It is submitted that the applicant during his service at Western Coal Fields, received offer of appointment dated 22.11.2019 to join IRHS (Indian Railway Health Services) from 16.12.2019 on a short notice from Railways. Applicant requested Railway Board to extend his joining date to complete his notice period and resignation formalities at WCL to join Indian Railways. Therefore, the request of the applicant for extension of time was accepted by Railway Board vide letter dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure A-6) and he joined IRHS (Indian Railway Health Services) from 21.05.2020 at NAIR/Vadodara for field training and he joined South East Central Railway after final Zonal allotment on 14.08.2020 as probationer. He is now working as ADMO/PC/MIB, Nagpur.
3(b). It is further submitted that the applicant submitted application dated 07.12.2020 regarding request for pay protection in fixation of pay from his date of joining IRHS (Indian Railway Health Services) and including his service at Western Coal field Limited (PSU) from 06.02.2019 to 16.05.2020. The same was not considered by Principal Chief Personnel Officer, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur vide letter dated 07.07.2023 (Annexure A-1) holding that as per the guidelines circulated vide PCPO/SECR Estt. Rule No. 145/2020, (RBE No. 70/2020), Protection of Pay in respect of candidates from PSUs, Universities and autonomous bodies etc. on their appointment to Central Government posts on direct recruitment basis is effective from 13.08.2020, whereas the applicant was appointed at a prior date i.e 21.05.2020.
3(c). Further, in terms of para 4 of DOPT's letter dated 13.08.2020, that the benefit of pay protection will be available to direct recruits appointed in Central Government to those posts for which the relevant Recruitment Rules prescribe a requirement of minimum number of years of experience in a specified area from the field sources (autonomous bodies, PSUs etc.) for appointment under the method of direct recruitment but the above guidelines is not mentioned with respect to Indian Railway Health Services (IRHS), where no such special experience etc. in PSU is sought as per Recruitment Rules.
3(d). Further, it is stated that the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.4546/2008 which was dismissed on the ground of delay leaving the question of law open. Further, in respect of the order passed by the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal, it is stated that while accepting the appointment without any demor or protest when the applicant has joined his services in IRSME and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim pay protection and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Parwani Vs. Union of India and others, applicant is not entitled for relief and, therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
Thereafter, rejoinder was filed by the applicant reiterating the contentions and placing on record the two orders passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nagendra Kumar Jha Vs. Union of India and Another reported in 2016 SCC Online Del 72 decided on 06.01.2016 and in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Abhay Kumar in Writ Petition No.3338/2022 and CM No.9735/2022 decided on 23.02.2022 and also the two orders passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Basavaraj Vs. Union of India and Another in OA No.2703/2021 decided on 07.03.2023 and in the case of Nirmal Chandra Kar Vs. Union of India & Another in OA No.1075/2022 with connected matters decided on 11.07.2023".
We have heard Shri Rahul Dhande, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri N.P. Lambat, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the pleadings and documents available on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that OM No.12/1/88-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 07th August, 1989 was issued to allow pay protection to persons joining Government service from Public Sector Undertakings. Subsequently, OM dated 10th July, 1998 was issued, whereby the benefit was restricted to candidates selected through interview, whereas persons selected through an open competitive examination were excluded in terms of paragraph 3 of the said OM. Thereafter, OM dated 13th August, 2020 was issued on the subject, providing that the benefit would be allowed irrespective of whether the post was filled by the recruiting agency on the basis of interview, open competitive examination, or a combination of both. However, the said OM was made effective from the date of its issuance i.e., 13th August, 2020.
It was argued that the OM of 13th August, 2020 was clarificatory in nature, which is evident from paragraph 2 thereof.
It was further argued that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjog Kapoor Vs. Union of India, WP No.5518/2004 decided on 20th April, 2007 reported in 2007 DGLS (Delhi) 810 and the consistent view take by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal and the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal, employees like the applicant are entitled to pay protection. It was further argued that once the OM dated 10th July, 1998 had been set aside by the competent court, which was the basis for the references made by different offices seeking clarifications, there was no justification for denying the applicant pay protection on the basis of OM dated 13th August, 2020.
It was also submitted by the applicant that similar matter came up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WP No.8280/2022 in the case of Senior Divisional Personnel Officer & Anr. Vs. Devidatta Satapathy, Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, wherein it was held that pay protection was to be granted. The said judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP, which came to be dismissed. It was further submitted that Mr. Devidatta Satapathy has been granted the benefit of pay protection in compliance with the order passed by the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.203/00650/2020.
Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the probation period in Coal India Limited was one year and that the applicant had already worked for 15 months, thereby demonstrating that he had duly completed the probation period. It was further submitted that no formal letter of probation/confirmation was issued by Coal India Limited/Western Coalfields Limited was issued, as there is no practice of issuing such letters in respect of Medical Executives appointed through direct recruitment.
It was, therefore, argued that the impugned order dated 07th July, 2023 is unsustainable.
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the purpose of the OM had not been considered by any of the courts in the decisions relied upon by the applicant. It was submitted that the purpose of the OM was talent acquisition and the process was given in the OM of 1998. It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dealt only with the condition contained in the 1998 OM to the extent of class within class i.e., selection through interview or selection through open competitive examination. It was argued that while setting aside the OM dated 10th July, 1998, the court did not consider that by allowing pay protection to all modes of appointment would lead to creation of persons in the same service, who would have come through the same set of examination and holding similar qualifications but would be drawing different salaries.
It was explained that it was never the intention of the Government to grant pay protection to everyone but it was a method for talent acquisition and was to be allowed to people with exceptional knowledge and skill serving in Public Sector Undertakings. It was for this reason that the OM of 1998 introduced the condition that only those selected through interview, and not through an open competitive examination, would be entitled to the benefit of pay protection.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
The issue that falls for consideration is whether the applicant, who was serving in Public Sector Undertaking and joined the Railways on 21st May, 2020, is entitled to pay protection on his transition from Coal India Limited to the Railways. In this regard, it would be worthwhile to examine the OMs governing this aspect, issued from time to time.
The first OM was issued on 7th August 1989. The same is reproduced below for ready reference:
"07th August, 1989
Office Memorandum
Subject: Guidelines for fixing pay of candidates working in Public Sector Undertakings, etc. recommended for appointment by the Commission by the method of recruitment by selection – regarding.
The undersigned is directed to say that as per extant rules/orders on the subject, pay protection is granted to candidates who are appointed by the method of recruitment by selection through the U.P.S.C., if such candidates are in Government service. No such pay protection is granted to candidates working in Public Sector Undertakings, Universities, Semi-Government Institutions or Autonomous Bodies, when they are so appointed in Government. As a result of this, it has not been possible for Government to draw upon the talent that is available in non-Government organizations.
2.The question as to how pay protection can be given in the case of candidates recruited from Public Sector Undertakings, etc. has been engaging the attention of the Government for some time. The matter has been carefully considered and the President is pleased to decide that in respect of candidates working in Public Sector Undertaking, Universities, Semi-Government Institutions or Autonomous Bodies, who are appointed as direct recruits on selection through a properly constituted agency including departmental authorities making recruitment directly, their initial pay may be fixed at a stage in the scale of pay attached to the post so that the pay and D.A., as admissible in the Government will protect the pay + D.A. already being drawn by them in their parent organizations. In the event of such a stage not being available in the post to which they have been recruited, their pay may be fixed at a stage just below in the scale of the post to which they have been recruited, so as to ensure a minimum loss to the candidates. The pay fixed under this formulation will not exceed the maximum of the scale of the post to which they have been recruited. The pay fixation is to be made by the employing Ministries/Departments after verification of all the relevant documents to be produced by the candidates who were employed in such Organizations."
The next relevant OM was issued on 10th July, 1998. The OM of 1998 was issued because clarifications had been sought regarding the OM of 1989 and the conditions under which benefit under that OM was admissible. The relevant paragraph 03 of the OM dated 10th July, 1998 is reproduced below:
"3.The benefit of pay protection is available to the Government servants on their recruitment by selection through UPSC, subject to fulfillment of certain " conditions. The benefit under the OM dated 07.08.89 was extended to the candidates working in central PSUS / State PSUS/ 'Universities / Semi-Government Institutions /Autonomous Bodies etc. with a view to drawing talent, which is available in those organizations. The question whether the objective underlying the above orders could be achieved through open competitive examination in which the employees from Public Sector Undertakings etc. also appear, has been considered. It is clarified that the benefit of pay protection under the above orders is available only if the selection is through interview and not through an open competitive examination. Wherever the protection under the above orders is to be given, the Commission will indicate in its recommendation letter to the Ministry concerned that pay of such candidate(s) should be fixed as per the guidelines laid down in the above orders. Further, the benefit would be available to an officer coming from PSU etc. only if the officer has completed the period of probation successfully for being regularized/confirmed in the post in the parent organization.”
Thereafter, OM dated 13th August, 2020 was issued. The relevant portion thereof is reproduced below:
“13th August, 2020
Office Memorandum
Subject: Protection of pay in respect of candidates from PSUs, Universities, autonomous bodies, etc. on their appointment to Central Government posts on Direct Recruitment basis -reg.
xxx
xxx
xxx
2.On receipt of certain cases seeking clarification as to the exact scope of this Department's OM dated 07.08.1989 and the conditions under which the benefit under that OM is admissible, this Department vide OM No 12/1/96-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 10.07.1998 clarified that the pay protection under the above orders is available, only if, the selection is through interview and not through an open competitive examination.
3.However, in the light of various court judgments and references received from various quarters, the above mentioned policy of pay fixation of the candidates coming from field sources (PSUs, Universities etc.) referred to in para 1, has been reviewed.
4.. The President is pleased to decide that notwithstanding the mode of selection, henceforth, the benefit of pay protection will be available to Direct Recruits appointed in Central Government to those posts for which the relevant Recruitment Rules prescribe a requirement of minimum number of years of experience in a specified area from the field sources (autonomous bodies, PSUs etc.) for appointment under the method of direct recruitment. The benefit will be allowed irrespective of whether the post is filled by the recruiting agency on the basis of interview or open competitive exam or combination of both.
5.This OM will be effective from the date of its issuance".
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the OM of 1998 lays down two conditions for grant of pay protection on transition from Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous Bodies, etc., to the Central Government:
First, relates to mode of selection i.e., interview and not through open competitive examination; and
ii) That there should be a recommendation by the UPSC to the Ministry concerned that the pay of such candidate be fixed in accordance with the prescribed guidelines.
It was argued that the second aspect has neither been considered nor decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It was further argued that in Sanjog Kapoor (supra), the court considered that Civil Services Examination conducted by the USPC is highly competitive, had an element of interview in the selection process and therefore, satisfies the purpose behind the OM of 1989. It was also submitted that the applicant in the present case was recruited through the UPSC, though not through the Civil Services Examination. It was also submitted that the OM dated 13th August, 2020 only removes the distinction between the different modes of recruitment but not the condition of recommendation by the Commission for grant of pay protection.
We find that the OM dated 07th August, 1989 had been issued to draw on the talent that is available in non-Government organization. The said OM simply prescribes the manner in which pay protection is to be granted. Certain restrictions were subsequently introduced by the OM dated 10th July, 1998, more particularly in paragraph 3, by prescribing two conditions, namely, that the selection should be through interview and not through an open competitive examination and that wherever protection was to be granted, the Commission will indicate its recommendation to the Ministry concerned. We find that the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjog Kapoor (supra) does not deal with the second aspect in any manner. It restricts itself basically to the question of the mode of selection, namely, interview or open competitive examination and holds that such classification is not logical. We, however find that the second issue was extensively argued by the respondents – Railway Administration – before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the case of Devidatta Satapathy (supra). It is true that the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh did not rule on this aspect but it has, following the decisions in Sanjog Kapoor, (supra), Union of India & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Rajora & Anr. [OP (CAT) No.78/2020] (Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam), Nagendra Kumar Jha Vs. Union of India, 2016 SCC Online Del 72 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court), Union of India Vs. Manjesh Porwal & Ors. [W.P.(C) 12475/2023 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court) and Union of India & Anr. Vs. Abhay Kumar, WP (C) No.3338/2022, upheld the decision of the Tribunal in granting pay protection to the applicant.
We, therefore, find that the objections raised by the respondents stand covered by the decision in the case of Sanjog Kapoor (supra) as well as by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Devidatta Satapathy (supra). Accordingly, we hold that the applicant is entitled to pay protection on his transition from Coal India Limited to the respondents – Railway Department.
We further find that in Sanjog Kapoor (supra), reference has been made to completion of probation in the previous organization as one of the conditions for eligibility to pay protection. The applicant has placed on record, by way of a 'pursis' along with email communication sent by Coal India Limited to CPO, Railway Board, stating that the applicant had worked from 06th February, 2019 to 16th May, 2020 and that his probation completion date may be read as 05th February, 2020. We, therefore, find that the applicant had completed the probation period in the PSU.
As regards the argument of the respondents that the matter has not attained finality and that the question of law remains open, since the SLP filed in the case of Devidatta Satapaty (supra) was dismissed on the ground of delay and not on merits, suffice it to say that it is always open for the respondents to pursue the matter before the appropriate higher forum. However, as of this day, we are bound by the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh.
In view of the above, we hold that the applicant is entitled to pay protection as per guidelines issued in this respect. The respondents are directed to grant pay protection to the applicant as per extant rules, regulations and orders. It is made clear that OM dated 13th August, 2020 and OM dated 10th July, 1998 will not come in the way of eligibility of the applicant for pay protection. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.