Principal Accountant General And Ors vs Abhishek Kumar

Sole Respondent has entered appearance through vakalatnama executed in favour of learned counsel Mr. Anil Kumar, who appears on his behalf.

Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the issue involved herein is covered by the decision of this Court passed in WPS No. 5120/2017

concerning the same organization.

Brief facts of the present case are being noticed hereunder as to examine whether the case of the parties are covered by the decision rendered by

this Court in the case of Principal Director of Commercial Audit & Ex-Officio Member, Audit Board, Ranchi & others Versus Adarsh Sharan in

WPS No. 5120/2017:

Applicant / Respondent herein was appointed on 11.05.2004 as Assistant Station Master, South East Central Railway, Nagpur in the pay scale of Rs.

5200- 20200, Grade Pay Rs. 2800 (as per 6th Central Pay Commission). He worked up to 21.12.2012. His basic pay as on the date of acceptance of

his technical resignation was Rs. 12,190+4,200 Grade Pay. Applicant was selected on the post of Auditor under the Office of Comptroller and Auditor

General of India after facing Combined Graduate Level Examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. He applied for recruitment

through proper channel after taking no objection on 25.08.2011. He was selected for the post of Auditor in the pay scale of Rs. 5,200-20,200+2800

Grade Pay. Appointment letter was issued to him on 23.11.2012. Applicant offered technical resignation to his previous employer which was accepted

on 21.12.2012 (Annexure-4). Applicant joined on 24.12.2012 on the post of Auditor and his initial pay was fixed at the stage of Rs. 12,190+2,800

Grade Pay in Pay Band-I (5200+20200) by office order dated 28.08.2013 under Rule 15(a) of Fundamental Rules in the light of Office Memorandum

No. 16/4/2012-Pay-I dated 05.11.2012 of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, Government

of India, New Delhi (Annexure-5/1). Thereafter, his pay was revised in light of Clause-(v) of Circular No. 15-Staffwing/2014 No. 62-Staff (Entt-

I)/90-2014 dated 31.03.2014 in terms of FR (22)(b) at the stage of Rs. 8560+2800 Grade Pay vide office order dated 26.08.2014 (Annexure-6). In the

opinion of the organization, pay protection at the time of appointment on the post of Auditor was erroneously given by the office in terms of D.O.P.T

Office Memorandum dated 05.11.2012 issued in relation to F.R.15(a). Organization was of the view that F.R 15(a) is related to transfer of

Government servant from one post to another and not to provide appointment. Hence, D.O.P.T Office Memorandum dated 05.11.2012 was not

applicable to the case of the applicant. Consequently, his pay was reduced.

Applicant being aggrieved, approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00206/2014 / O.A.

No. 050/00643/2014. Learned CAT, by the impugned order dated 22.03.2017 (Annexure-8) quashed the Office Memorandum dated 26.08.2014,

whereunder pay protection granted earlier was recalled and pay of the petitioner was reduced to the scale of Rs. 8560+2800 Grade Pay in Pay Band-

I.

It appears from perusal of the judgment dated 11.07.2018 passed in WPS No. 5120/2017 by this Court and relied upon by both the parties that the

very same issue relating to grant of pay protection in the same organization was under consideration in case of an employee who had joined the office

of Comptroller and Auditor General on the post of Auditor in the same Pay Band and scale of pay after his technical resignation from the post of

Inquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk in East Southern Railway was accepted by his previous employer. He had also applied through proper channel. Office

of CAG had subsequently reduced his pay from Rs. 12120+4200 (Grade Pay) to Rs. 8560+2800 Grade Pay in the light of same Office Memorandum

dated 31.03.2014. This Court, upon consideration of the statutory rules i.e. Fundamental Rules and Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2014 issued by

the CAG, held in the following manner.

“Learned counsel for the petitioners organization has harped upon the revised office order no.54 dated 2nd June 2014 under which the

pay of the applicant was fixed at Rs.8560+2800/- being the highest in the Pay Band-I of Rs.5200-20200/-. However, we may observe here

that Clause-(iv) and (v) of the Circular No.15 dated 31st March 2014, in such circumstances, cannot be applied in derogation of principles

laid down by the Statute i.e. the Fundamental Rules. They have to be read in consonance with the Statutory Rules applicable to the

organization. Moreover, acceptance of the offer of appointment by the applicant at the time of joining in terms of the letter dated 19th

January 2012 (Annexure-2) would not operate as estoppel to raise a claim for pay protection, if it is permissible under the law.â€​

This Court held that FR 22 did provide protection to such employee. The said applicant was entitled to pay protection. Accordingly, the order of

learned CAT was upheld. However, in the facts of the said case, it was found that the learned Tribunal had not entered into minute scrutiny of actual

pay fixation done by the organization both under office order no. 161 dated 06.03.2014 and revised pay fixed by office order no. 54 dated 02.06.2014.

Accordingly, it was held as under:

“In such circumstances, while upholding the case of the applicant in principle for his entitlement to pay protection, we give liberty to the

petitioner organization to compute the pay fixation of the respondent in correct manner in the light of the principle prescribed in FR 22(B)

and the proviso quoted above. The impugned order is accordingly modified in the manner indicated herein above. The writ petition stands

disposed of in the aforesaid terms. I.A. No. 5001/2018 stands disposed of.â€​

In the facts of the present case, the issue of computation is not involved. The order of learned CAT has been complied during pendency of

C.C.P.A. No. 051/0019 of 2017 before the learned Tribunal and arrears of salary under new pay scale and grade pay have already been paid to the

applicant, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Principal Accountant General (Audit). Therefore, no direction is required to be issued for

a fresh computation in the case of the present applicant / Respondent herein.

On consideration of the gamut of facts of the present case, we find that the case of the present Respondent herein is fully covered by the ratio

rendered in the case of Adarsh Sharan (Supra). Challenge to the impugned order therefore fails. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. I.A. No.

10374/2018 stands closed.