AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
The present Review Application (RA) has been filed by the review applicants seeking review of order dated 14.05.2026 in OA No.4039/2016 and prays that the aforementioned OA should be allowed.
OA No.4039/2016 was filed by the present review applicants in the said OA seeking the following relief:
““(i) to quash and set aside the impugned Office Order No.1026 dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Respondents No. 1 to 4 through Respondent No.4;
(ii)to declare the action of the respondents not treating applicants in upgraded pay scale Rs.7450-11500 as on 01.01.2006 as illegal and issue appropriate directions to fix the pay of the applicants at Rs. 13860/- with grade pay Rs 4600 Rs. 18460/-as on 01.01.2006 in corresponding revised pay structure Rs.9300-34800 as per provisions of Rule 4 & 7 (1)(A)(0) & (ii) of Revised Pay Rules, 2008 and recommendations of 6th CPC. inasmuch as, in the light of observations of (1) this Hon'ble Tribunal in Order dated 27.03.2015 passed in OA No.98/2014, Malbika Deb Gupta & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; (ii) Order dated 04.11.2016 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(Civil) No.8058/2015 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Malbika Deb Gupta & Ors.; (iii) Order dated 18.05.2018 passed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No.8507/ 2018 Mrs. Usha Ramesh Nee Usha K.P. & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors.;
(iii)to direct the respondents to remove pay anomaly by fixing pay of applicants in the revised pay structure Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4600 from 1.1.2006 granting benefit of bunching at appropriate stage and pay all consequential benefits;
(iv)to direct the Respondents not to rely and apply the Office Memorandum No.8-23/2017-E.IIIA dated 28.09.2018 (Annexure A-2) issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of India, New Delhi while fixing revised pay of the applicants as per para (b.) of relief (supra) AND quash and set aside all actions taken or orders passed by the respondents while relying and applying the Office Memorandum No.8-23/2017-E.IIIA dated 28.09.2018 (Annexure A-2) for the purpose of fixation of revised pay of applicants w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as per provisions of Rule 4 & 7 (1)(A)(i) & (ii) of Revised Pay Rules, 2008
(v)to quash and set aside the impugned Office Order No.81 dated 15.01.2021 issued by Addl. M.S., Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan, Delhi and impugned Order dated 12.10.2020 issued by Resident Medical officer, Central Jail Hospital, Tihar, New Delhi (Annexure A-3 Colly) under instructions and directions of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3;
(vi)to direct the respondent to make payment of arrears of revised pay in time bound manner with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 29.08.2008 i.e. the date of Gazette Notification or at the rate of interest as admissible and applicable for GPF till the date of actual payment of entire arrears to the applicants;
(vii)to allow the OA with exemplary costs; and
(viii)to pass such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
After issuance of notices to the respondents in the said OA and completing the pleadings, the OA was finally heard on 15.04.2026 along with OA No.4039/2016. At the time of final hearing, learned counsel on behalf of both the parties interchangeably returned to pleading in either of the OAs. On account of this, both the OAs No.83/2022 and 4039/2016 have been called on the fundamental issues. The issue has been clearly mentioned in the first sentence of paragraph 5.2 under heading “Analysis” in both the orders in respect of OA No.83/2022 and OA No.4039/2016. Incidentally, the counsels for the applicants in both the OAs were same and they argued both OAs taking one of the OAs as the basis of their averments. Mr. Amit Yadav was the lead counsel for the respondents.
This Tribunal vide orders dated 14.05.2025 passed the following order:
“5.13In view of above, the present OA is partially allowed. The respondents are directed to modify the order dated 15.01.2021 in the following manner:-
(i)Let the respondents arrive at the pre-revised scale of the applicants as on 01.01.2006 and multiply with a factor of 1.86 to arrive at a product. The product so arrived shall be compared with the entry level pay of Rs. 17140 (12450+GP 4600) as on 01.01.2006. If the product is less than Rs. 17140/- the applicants shall be granted the revised pay as on 01.01.2006 at Rs. 17140/-. In case the product is more than Rs. 17140/- then the product shall be retained as revised pay at the appropriate level as per the PB 9300-13400/-. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Pending MA also stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.”
The present review applicants have sought review of the said order dated 14.05.2025 on the following grounds:
“(i)Attribution to the Petitioners/Applicants of an argument (multiplication of Rs.7,450/- by 1.86) never pleaded or advanced by them, which argument was expressly disclaimed in the Written Submissions filed on record, and then rejecting the OA on the basis of this non-existent argument;
(ii)Incorrect application of OM dated 28.09.2018 (which is expressly limited to Part-A of the First Schedule) to the Petitioners/Applicants whose pay scale falls exclusively under Part-B of the First Schedule;
(iii)Misreading and misconstruction of the Order dated 27.03.2015 in Malbika Deb Gupta Vs. Union of India (OA No.98/2014), which was upheld by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, and which directed fixation at Rs. 13,860/- + GP Rs.4,600/- = Rs.18,460/-;
(iv)Non-application and incorrect application of Note 2A below Rule 7 and Illustration 4A to the Explanatory Memorandum of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 the specific statutory provision governing upgradation cases;
(v)Internal inconsistency in identifying the flaw in the impugned order dated 15.01.2021 (blind application of direct recruit entry pay) but replicating the same error in the Tribunal’s own directions;
(vi)Non-consideration of material evidence on record – the Respondents’ own Office Order No.173 dated 28.02.2020 and similar orders, which fixed pay at Rs.18,460/- and were submitted as compliance before this Tribunal.
(vii)Directions in the Impugned Order contrary to the settled and binding legal position laid down by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court in multiple orders on record; and
(viii)No direction or reasoning on the prayer for interest on arrears, despite the specific statutory basis under Rule 14 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.”
In paragraph 3.9, the Review Applicants have mentioned details of typographical errors as contained in the Tabular presentation. The detailed paper-book of the OA was perused and the typographical errors are admitted.
In paragraph 3.1, the Review Applicants mention:
“HON’BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS ATTRIBUTED TO PETITONERS/ APPLICNTS AN ARGUMENT/PLEA OF MULTIPLYING Rs.7,450/- BY 1.86, WHICH WAS NEITHER PLEADED NOR ARGUED BY THE PETITIONERS/ APPLICANTS:”
A detailed perusal of the pleadings was again gone through. From the pleadings in the OA, this Tribunal inferred that the applicants in the OA have indirectly sought refixation of pay of the applicants at Rs.13,860/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4600 in PB-2 as on 01.01.2006 as per CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and OM dated 09.08.2016. Such a pay fixation is possible when the revised pay of the applicants is converted to Rs.7450/- as on 01.01.2006 and then re-converted to the pay as on 01.01.2006 by multiplying Rs.7450 with 1.86 which is Rs.13,857, i.e. approximately Rs.13,860/-. Hence, the inference by this Tribunal is from the pleadings by the applicants read with relief paragraphs. Hence, there is no apparent error of facts on face of records of the OA.
In paragraph 3.2 the Review Applicants have stated:
“HON’BLE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 5.9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS RECORDED AND QUOTED FROM THE ORDER OF MALBIKA DEV GUPTA WHICH IS IN FACT NON-EXISTENT IN THE ORDER OF MALBIKA DEB GUPTA.”
This Tribunal has not stated that paragraph 5.9 is quoted from Malbika Dev Gupta vs. Union of India. Paragraph 5.9 is reproduced below:
“5.9In Malbika Dev Gupta (Supra) case, this Tribunal has not accepted that each and every staff nurse, irrespective of the pre-revised pay scale shall be entitled revised pay as on 01.01.2006 by multiplying Rs. 7450/-with multiplier 1.86 plus grade pay of Rs 4600/-. It has reiterated the Note 2 under Rule 7 of CCS(RP) Rules 2008, when it states that “at least the staff nurses should get a minimum of Rs 17410/- (Rs. 12540 plus Rs. 4600) at par with direct recruits as on 01.01.2006”. This has been reiterated in Department of Expenditure OM dated 29.09.2018.”
In the above paragraph there is a reference to Malbika Dev Gupta (supra) case. It never stated that the paragraph is quoted from the order/judgment in Malbika Dev Gupta (supra) case.
It is out rightly misconceived on the part of the Review-applicants to allege such incorrect insinuation to the Tribunal. The Review Applicants and their counsel should have been more careful before alleging in such manner.
In para 3.3 of the RA the review-applicants have mentioned “HON’BLE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 5.5 OF THE IMPGUEND ORDER HAS QUOTED PARA 4.2 – 4.4 OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT WHICH ARE IN FACT NON-EXISTENT IN REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENTS:”
The factual error is admitted. This is a typographical error. The correct entry under Paragraph 5.5 of the order dated 14.05.2026, the following shall be inserted:
“4.2& 4.3 That the contents of Para(s) 4.2 & 4.3 are admitted as the Applicants pay was stepped up alongwith their juniors however vide order dated 13.07.2010 & 19.07.2010, instead of fixing their pay by multiplying the factor of 1.86 as required the pay was fixed at Rs.12540 plus G.P. Rs.4600 on 01.01.2006 i.e. at the stage of the pay as fixed for newly recruited Staff Nurses, as mentioned in the Section II Part A of the First Schedule of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, which was not as per provisions of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. Further, as per the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the pay of all the Applicants was also stepped up, equaling their pay to that of their junior, who joined after i.e. w.e.f. 27.01.2006 to the pay of 01.01.2006 i.e. w.e.f. Rs.12540 + 4600. As per the GOI decision vide sub Rule 3 of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the officials who join the particular grade On account of promotion/appointment etc i.e. stepping up in this Case between 2nd January and 30th June, will not get the next increment on 1st July of that year and their next increment will fall on 1st July of next year. In the case of Applicants, their pay was stepped up to Rs.12540 + 4600 on 27.01.2006 (equaling their pay to that of their junior), therefore, their next date of increment falls on 01.07.2007.
4.4The contents of Para 4.4 are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the Applicants as entitled to get their pay fixed as per the order dated 19.07.2010. It is wrong and denied that the Applicants pay is to be fixed at Rs.13,860/- with grade pay of Rs.4600/- i.e. Rs.18,460/-. The said calculation does not bear any of any formula/calculation as prescribed. The Applicants were drawing the wrong pay and thus their pay has been rightly corrected to the pay scale that should be drawn by them in accordance with law and same is well within their knowledge as in the representation dated 27.10.2016. The Applicants have not assailed the legal proprietary of the order but only assailed the recovery as manifests in the said representation.”
It is made clear that the above corrections in the form of submissions by the learned counsel for the respondents in no way have any impact on the final outcome of the OA as has been ordered on 14.05.2026.
The review applicants in paragraph 3.4 have stated “HON’BLE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 2.7 AND 3.1 OF IMPUGNED ORDER HAS RECORDED FACTUALLY WORNG AND INCORRECT STATEMENT. It has been further stated that the extracts are neither part of reply affidavit of the respondents nor to the petitioners in the present case.”
It is stated that these facts were culled out from the pleadings in both the OAs, OA No.83/2002 and OA No.4039/2016, which are argued simultaneously. These reasoning to arrive at a particular conclusion, rebuttal by the Tribunal in respect of each and every paragraph in the pleadings in the OA, are not warranted. The Tribunal again reiterates that the material placed on record by both the parties, have been gone through and after appreciating them and relying on the relevant and specific portion, the final conclusion has been arrived.
The averments by the Review-applicants in paragraphs 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 amounts to re-arguing the case and insisting on a particular way of interpretation which suits to the desire and liking of the review-applicants. These refer to neither apparent error of facts or law on face of record. A differing view on a particular issue or differing interpretation of a particular judgment by the review applicants is not a valid reason for accepting the Review Application.
In view of the above, the present RA is partially allowed. The typographical errors, as mentioned in Paragraphs 5 and 8 above, are admitted and the Registry is directed to carry out/ incorporate the aforesaid typographical errors/corrections in the order dated 14.05.2026 and upload the amended order.
The RA is disposed of in the above manner by way of circulation.