P.K.Trivedi vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial)

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the orders dated 05.07.2012 and 13.08.2012 relating to fixation of his pay and seeking consequential benefits. The reliefs prayed for by the applicant are as under:-

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Lab Assistant (SC Grade-I) on 07.08.1977 and was later promoted as SC Grade-III (Lab) in 1995. He subsequently sought promotion to the post of T-1 (Dairy Technician), and this Tribunal, vide judgment dated 20.05.2011 passed in O.A. No. 821 of 2006, directed that he be considered for promotion to the said post from the date on which his junior, Shri Triveni Yadav, was promoted, subject to the prescribed selection criteria. Pursuant to the said judgment, the applicant was promoted to the post of T-1 with effect from 29.03.2006 on a notional basis, while actual financial benefits were allowed from the date of his joining the higher post, i.e., 22.11.2011. The applicant has challenged the pay-fixation orders dated 05.07.2012 and 13.08.2012, contending that his pay was not correctly fixed in accordance with the aforesaid judgment. He has, therefore, filed the present Original Application seeking quashing of the impugned orders and a direction to the respondents to protect his basic pay drawn in the lower post, grant admissible annual increments notionally up to 22.11.2011, and pay the consequential arrears from 22.11.2011 onwards.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was entitled to notional promotion to the post of T-1 (Dairy Technician) with effect from 29.03.2006, in terms of the judgment dated 20.05.2011 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 821 of 2006. However, the respondents failed to grant him the consequential benefits in the correct manner and passed the impugned pay fixation orders dated 05.07.2012 and 13.08.2012. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant's basic pay drawn in the lower post was required to be protected while fixing his pay in the higher post, with the admissible annual increments granted notionally up to 22.11.2011. It was also submitted that the respondents could not reduce or withdraw the applicant's admissible pay benefits contrary to the applicable Fundamental Rules and the earlier judgment of this Tribunal. Despite the applicant's representations, the respondents did not redress his grievance. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and the respondents be directed to refix the applicant's pay in accordance with the rules and the aforesaid judgment and grant him the consequential monetary benefits.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant’s pay was fixed in accordance with the applicable rules and the judgment passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 821 of 2006. It was submitted that the applicant was granted notional promotion to the post of T-1 (Dairy Technician) with effect from 29.03.2006, but he was entitled to financial benefits only from the date of his actual joining on 22.11.2011. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant could not claim the benefits of two different categories of posts simultaneously. Since the applicant had been appointed to the technical service, the benefits of the MACP Scheme, which had earlier been granted to him while working as Skilled Support Staff, were withdrawn in accordance with the applicable rules. It was, therefore, contended that the impugned pay fixation orders were lawful and justified, and the applicant had no valid ground to challenge the same.

In the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant’s case had been examined by the competent authority in the light of the earlier judgment of this Tribunal, the applicable Fundamental Rules, the Technical Service Rules and the relevant pay-fixation provisions. The respondents clarified that the applicant’s pay was notionally fixed in the T-1 grade with effect from 29.03.2006, while the financial benefits were allowed from the date of his actual joining the higher post. It was further submitted that Shri Triveni Yadav’s case was distinguishable because the service and pay-fixation circumstances, including the benefits earlier granted under the MACP Scheme, were different. The respondents maintained that the applicant’s pay had been fixed after allowing the admissible notional increments and that no benefit specifically granted under the earlier judgment had been withheld. They further submitted that the matter had been referred to the Council for clarification regarding the correctness of the pay fixation in the light of the earlier judgment and the applicable rules. On these grounds, the respondents contended that the applicant’s claim for further pay protection and consequential monetary benefits was not sustainable and prayed that the Original Application be dismissed.

In the rejoinder affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavit, the applicant denied the respondents’ contention regarding the correctness of the pay fixation and submitted that the directions issued by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 821 of 2006 had not been properly implemented. It was contended that the respondents had failed to protect the applicant’s pay and grant admissible increments in accordance with the applicable Fundamental Rules. Learned counsel further submitted that the comparative pay records of the applicant and Shri Triveni Yadav revealed discrepancies in pay fixation, resulting in the applicant drawing less pay than his junior. It was, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to rectify the pay fixation and grant the consequential financial benefits in accordance with the applicable rules and the earlier judgment of this Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and Another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 578, to contend that an employee should not be placed in a disadvantageous pay position vis-à-vis his junior and that the principle of pay parity requires due consideration. Learned counsel also relied upon the relevant correspondence and comparative pay records placed on record to submit that the applicant’s pay had not been correctly fixed despite the earlier judgment of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 821 of 2006. It was, therefore, contended that the respondents were required to examine the applicant’s claim for pay protection and stepping up of pay in accordance with the applicable Fundamental Rules.

Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 15479 of 2023, Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Others v. Ganesh Chandra Pant. Learned counsel also relied upon the office order dated 05.07.2012 to submit that the applicant’s pay had been fixed notionally with effect from 29.03.2006 in terms of the judgment passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 821 of 2006, and that actual financial benefits were admissible from the date of his joining the higher post, i.e., 22.11.2011. It was, therefore, contended that the respondents had acted in accordance with the earlier judicial directions and the applicable rules and that no further relief was warranted.

We have considered the submissions made by Mr. A.K. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, and examined the pleadings, relevant documents and material available on record.

The principal issue for consideration is whether the respondents have correctly implemented the judgment dated 20.05.2011 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 821 of 2006 while fixing the applicant’s pay in the T-1 (Dairy Technician) grade. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the applicant was held entitled to consideration for promotion to the post of T-1, subject to the prescribed selection criteria. The judgment further provided for notional promotion for the period preceding the date on which the applicant actually assumed the higher responsibilities, with actual benefits admissible from the date of such assumption. Accordingly, the applicant’s entitlement has to be determined in accordance with the specific directions contained in the said judgment and the applicable service rules.

The applicant has challenged the pay-fixation orders dated 05.07.2012 and 13.08.2012, claiming protection of his pay and stepping up thereof at par with Shri Triveni Yadav in the T-1 (Dairy Technician) grade. The applicant was granted notional promotion with effect from 29.03.2006, whereas he actually joined the higher post on 22.11.2011. The question is whether, apart from such notional promotion, the applicant was also entitled to the pay protection and stepping up claimed by him.

From a perusal of the record, it appears that promotion to the T-1 (Dairy Technician) grade under the 33⅓% quota was subject to the prescribed eligibility conditions, including the requisite educational qualification and experience in the Skilled Support (SS) grade in Dairy. Employees working in different trades and disciplines in the respondent department belonged to their respective grades and had separate seniority in those grades. Consequently, the pay drawn by an employee before promotion, and the manner in which it was fixed on promotion, had to be considered in the context of the applicable rules and the employee’s previous service position. The mere fact that two employees were promoted notionally to the same grade with effect from the same date would not, by itself, establish an entitlement to identical pay.

The applicant has contended that, on 29.03.2006, the pay of Shri Triveni Yadav in the T-1 (Dairy Technician) grade was fixed at Rs. 7,720/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/-, whereas the applicant’s pay was fixed at Rs. 7,310/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/- on the same date. The applicant’s pay-fixation statement records pay of Rs. 7,310/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,800/- with effect from 01.01.2006, and notional fixation at Rs. 7,310/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/- with effect from 29.03.2006. His pay was subsequently fixed at Rs. 7,590/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/- with effect from 01.07.2007. On the other hand, the pay-fixation sheet of Shri Triveni Yadav records pay of Rs. 7,440/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,650/- as on 01.01.2006 and Rs. 7,720/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/- with effect from 29.03.2006. These entries show that the two employees had different pay and Grade Pay positions before the notional promotion. Their respective pay fixation in the promotional post is to be considered with reference to their previous service positions and Grade Pay. On that basis, the pay of Shri Triveni Yadav was fixed at Rs. 7,720/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/-. Therefore, the applicant’s pay fixation on 29.03.2006 at Rs. 7,590/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/-, on the basis of his last pay drawn as on 01.01.2006, i.e. Rs. 7,310/-with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,800/- is correct and does not suffer from any error.

The pleadings further indicate that the applicant had earlier been granted the benefit of MACP while working in the Skilled Support Staff category. The respondents have stated in their counter affidavit that, upon the applicant’s appointment to the technical service in the T-1 grade, the benefit of MACP was withdrawn as the same was not admissible to technical personnel in the circumstances of the case. They have further stated that the applicant’s pay was fixed notionally with effect from 29.03.2006 and that financial benefits were admissible from the date of his actual joining, i.e., 22.11.2011, relying upon Fundamental Rule 27. The respondents maintain that the fixation was made in accordance with the applicable rules and the judgment passed in O.A. No. 821 of 2006.

The applicant, on the other hand, contends that his basic pay drawn in the lower post ought to have been protected and that he was entitled to notional annual increments up to the date of his actual joining, along with the admissible consequential arrears. The claim for pay protection and stepping up has to be examined with reference to the applicable pay-fixation rules, the distinction between the two employees’ service categories and the specific directions contained in the earlier judgment. The respondents’ reliance upon Fundamental Rule 27 does not, by itself, establish either an automatic entitlement to stepping up of pay or the legality of every aspect of the disputed fixation. The relevant question is whether the fixation of the applicant’s pay and the withdrawal of the MACP benefit were consistent with the rules applicable to him and the directions of this Tribunal.

The applicant has relied upon the judgment in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and Another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 578, in support of his claim for pay parity. The applicability of that decision has to be considered in the context of the relevant service rules and the factual circumstances governing the applicant’s pay fixation. Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, the applicant has not established that the difference in pay arose in circumstances requiring his pay to be stepped up to that of Shri Triveni Yadav or that the respondents’ fixation was contrary to the applicable rules and the directions contained in the judgment dated 20.05.2011.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that no sufficient ground is made out to interfere with the impugned orders dated 05.07.2012 and 13.08.2012. The applicant has failed to establish his entitlement, under the applicable rules and the earlier judgment of this Tribunal, to further pay protection, stepping up of pay or consequential arrears beyond the benefits admissible to him. The Original Application is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.