R.P.Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

The applicant was initially appointed as Accounts Assistant w.e.f. 05.08.1985 and was further promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer on 14.01.1991. He was recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer.

The applicant was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer on ad-hoc basis on 11.03.1996, which was extended from time to time without any break. He, however, was regularized as Accounts Officer on 01.09.2009.

The Board of CPCB has upgraded the post of Accounts Officer in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 (4^th CPC) and also approved the Recruitment Rules. The applicant had made a request on 16.03.1998 to fix his pay in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 in terms of the decision of the Central Board taken in its 104^th meeting held on 27.06.1996. The said request of the applicant was, however, rejected by the Central Board for grant of higher pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 on the ground that he has not yet completed 08 years of service, as required, in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500.

On completion of 08 years of service in the scale of pay of Rs.2000-3500 the applicant made a request to the Central Board for fixation of his pay in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500, revised to Rs.10000-15200 in terms of the decision of the Central Board taken in its 104^th Meeting held on 27.06.1996.

The Central Pollution Control Board, however, changed the scale of pay of applicant from Rs.2375-3500 (revised to Rs.7450-11500) to the scale of Rs.3000-4500 (revised to Rs.10000-15200) on acquiring required experience vide office order No.F.No.C-22012/11/91-Admn(P)/227, as per decision of Central Board taken in its 104^th meeting held on 27.06.1996. Meanwhile, on 28.02.2007 the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests sought comments on upgradation of the post of Accounts Officer. The Chairman, CPCB, on 07/09.03.2007 justified the said upgradation and replied the letter dated 28.02.2007 of Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest & Climate Change.

The Chairman, CPCB, however, on implementing the recommendations of the 6^th Central Pay Commission, fixed the pay of applicant in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade pay Rs.6600/- in Pay Band-3 (corresponding to Pre revised scale of Rs.10000-15200) vide office order No.C-26011/2/93-Admn-(P)2541. He was also granted annual increment on 20.07.2009 in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.6600 in PB-3 and his pay was fixed at Rs.26650/-.

The applicant was given additional charge of promotional post of Finance & Accounts Officer on 31.08.2009. He, however, was regularized on the post of Accounts Officer in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- from ad-hoc Accounts Officer (pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.600) w.e.f. 01.09.2009.

However, the Central Board reduced the pay of the applicant on 20.04.2010 in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800 at Rs.20630/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4600 w.e.f. 01.09.2009 against which the applicant submitted his appeal to the Appellate Authority. The Central Board rejected the appeal of the applicant on 07.03.2011.

The applicant submitted a review petition on 21.02.2012 challenging the order dated 07.03.2011. Meanwhile the power of the Central Board under Rule 8 of the Water Rules, 1975 was withdrawn by the Ministry of Environment and Forest & Climate Change. He, however, was directed by respondent No.1 to first raise all the contentions before the competent authority. The applicant again approached respondent No.1 on 27.06.2013. The applicant was further informed by respondent No.1 that respondent No.2 is the competent authority in the matter. On 05.12.2013 review petition was rejected by respondent No.2. Applicant again approached respondent No.2 to rectify the mistake committed in fixing his pay. The said request was finally rejected by the respondent No.2 on 16.02.2017. The applicant also requested the respondent no.2 on 02.03.2017 to review the order dated 16.02.2017, as CPCB is the competent authority as per Ministry of Finance Note dated 13.10.2008 and notification dated 09.11.2011 issued by respondent No.1 but to no avail. Hence the OA.

Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply, to which the applicant has filed his rejoinder.

Learned counsel for applicant refers to affidavit dated 22.08.2026 filed on behalf of the applicant which is on record. He refers to annexure A-1 which is the Central Pollution Control Board (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers under employees other than Members Secretary) 1995. He refers to Schedule No. 15 where the post of the AO is mentioned. That implies that the post of Accounts Officer was very much there since 1995. He refers to the Annexure A-4 of the OA which is an order dated 22.01.1999 vide which the following order has been passed:

Learned counsel for applicant refers to the Annexure A-5 (page 40), re-fixation of pay as per the recommendations of 6th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and accordingly applicant’s pay was fixed at Rs. 22840/- + grade pay of Rs. 6600/-. Vide order dated 01.09.2009 Annexure A-7 the applicant was promoted on regular basis as an Accounts officer. While promoting on regular basis they reduced the grade pay from Rs. 6600/- to Rs. 4600/-. There is no reason assigned why they have reduced the grade pay of the applicant.

The learned counsel for the applicant states that grade pay of the applicant should be retained at Rs. 6600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the pay scale given by the order dated 17.11.2008 with grade pay of Rs. 6600/- was correctly fixed and when he was given regular promotion vide order dated 01.09.2009. As per FR 23 he had to opt for retain in the old pay and grade pay or he can go for the new pay scale in the promoted post. He refers to the following provision of FR 23:

Referring to aforementioned provision in FR 23, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant should have option for retaining the old pay in the previous post when he was promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Accounts Officer in grade pay of Rs.6600/-. As he had already getting grade pay of Rs.6600/- on ad hoc promotion as per FR 23, the applicant is entitled to retain the grade pay of Rs.6600/- when he was regularly promoted to the said post.

In support of the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for applicant submits that the CPCB had the power to provide a particular Grade Pay to its employee at the time of giving ad hoc promotion as well as regular promotion. He refers to note dated 13.10.2008 (page 75) which states as under:

Referring to the above quoted note, existing by-laws of the CPCB empowered the Board to create a post, which was subsequently taken away by the Ministry vide notification dated 09.11.2011 (page 49). The Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- was given to the applicant prior to this amendment which came in November 2011. Hence the legitimate Grade Pay given by the respondents CPCB to the applicant could not have been taken by invoking amendment which came in 2011.

Learned counsel for applicant further mentions that in a similar matter one Shri Nain Singh approached this Tribunal and subsequently to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.12054/2015. Particularly, he refers to paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the said judgment dated 16.07.2019, which are reproduced as under:

Referring to the aforementioned judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant in the present OA is similar to the applicant in said judgment. The respondents could not have retrospectively implemented the decision which was amended by the Ministry in November 2011.

Learned counsel for applicant further refers to the Resolution dated 27.06.1996 of the respondents Board where the pay scale of the Accounts Officers were changed from Rs. 2375-3500/- to 3000-4500/-. This revised pay scale was converted to Rs. 10,000-15,200/-. When 6^th Central Pay Commission came, it converted to Grade Pay of Rs.6600/-and to that effect the respondents have issued the revised pay vide order dated 17.11.2008 to the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant continued to this grade pay till the respondents re-fixed the pay of the applicant in 2009.

Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 distinguished the facts of the present case to the case before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. He submits that the applicant in that matter was a regular employee to the post of Accounts Officer whereas in the instant case the applicant was earlier ad hoc employee and thereafter granted the regular promotion.

At this stage, a query was put to Ms. Sumedha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, whether the Board was competent to modify the pay scale of Accounts Officer as was done by Resolution dated 27.06.1996 because the original rules of 1995 state that the pay scales of AO was Rs.2375-3500. The Board vide aforementioned resolution enhanced the pay scale of the Accounts Officer to Rs.3000-4500. She was specifically queried whether this required the amendment of the said Rules or not. It is not a mere conversion of pay scales as per the Central Pay Commission’s Recommendation but it was significant change in the pay scale contrary to the position in the rules. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 refers to paragraph 3.3 of the counter reply filed by them but this does not answer to the query by the Tribunal.

After hearing both parties and perusing the records of the case thoroughly, this Tribunal comes to the inference that the basic issue involved in adjudication of the present Central Administrative Tribunal^{Original Application is as follows:}

The above resolution has further consequential effect on fixation of pay of Sh. R.P. Gupta, the present applicant who was holding the post of Account Officer. As per letter dated 22.10.1999, the Respondent No.3 has revised the pay of Sh. Gupta toRs7450-11500 and Rs10,000-15,200/ after the 5^th CPC recommendation and fixed pay of Sh. R.P. Gupta at Rs 10,000/- w.e.f. 14.01.1999, after he had acquired the requisite experience.

In this regard, the relevant Recruitment Rules for various employees of Respondent No.3 needs to be analysed. At the time of revising the pay scales of Account Officer vide Resolution No.104 on 27.6.1996, the Central Pollution Board (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers and other Employees other than Member Secretary), Regulations, 1995 were in vogue. The said Rules are placed by the applicant vide his Affidavit dated 25.08.2026, in the form of Annexure-A1 to said affidavit. Clause 6 of the said Regulations state:

Entry at S. No. 15 of the said Schedule -I has the following provision:

workload 8 9 10 11 12 Not Two Transfer on Transfer on deputation/ Departmental applicable years (for deputation/ promotion: Promotion promotes Promotion Committee: only). 1. Officers of the Central Government/ State Chairman, Governments/ Union Central Board Territory – Chairman Administrations or Central/ State Joint Autonomous or Secretary or Statutory bodies. his nominee (dealing with (a) (i) Holding analogous establishment posts on regular basis; of Board) in or the MoEF – Member. (ii) having at least 4/6 years of regular service Two Members in post in the scale of of the Board Rs.2000-3200, Rs.1640- to be 2900 respectively or nominated by equivalent, and the Chairman – Members. (b) possessing the following: Member Secretary, Bachelor’s degree in Central Board Commerce from a – Member. Central Administrative Tribunal^{recognized University or} Institution with at least 7 years experience in a supervisory level or SAS accounts with 7 years experience in accounts, audit and financial management. 2. The departmental Assistant Accounts Officer with 2 years of regular service in the grade will also be considered and in case he is selected for appointment in the post, the same will be deemed to have been filled by promotion. (Period of deputations shall not ordinarily exceed 3 years).

From the above it is seen that the pay scale of Accounts Officer was Rs 2375-73-3200/- at the time of passing the said Resolution No.104 on 27.06.1996 (unrevised before implementation of 5^th CPC recommendations). The said Regulations were notified Under Sub-Section 3A of Section 12 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, with prior approval of Central Government. Sub-section 3A of the said Act states:

In view of the aforementioned statutory provision, no change in the terms and conditions of its employees could be affected by Respondent No.3 without approval of the Central Government, Respondent No.1. The Grade Pay of Rs.6600/-was as a follow up of the revised pay scale of Rs.7450-11,500/-, according to which the pay of the present applicant was fixed at Rs.10,000/- with effect from 14.01.1999. When he was given regular promotion w.e.f. 01.09.2009, the applicant opted to retain his old pay and Grade Pay as per FR-23.

The applicant has not brought any documentary evidence showing that the aforementioned revision of pay scale of the Accounts Officer w.e.f. 27.6.1996 was with the approval of the Central Government. He has failed to bring any modified regulation amending clause 6 and Schedule-I of the Central Pollution Board (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers and Other Employees Other than Member Secretary), Regulations, 1995. From the pleadings by both the parties and submissions by them on 08.09.2026, it is abundantly clear that the Central Government has not given it consent as yet for such revision as effected vide Resolution dated 104 dated 27.06.1996. The learned counsel for the applicant has referred to letter dated 13.10.2008 (page 75 of the OA) by which the Ministry of Environment has agreed to regularise 32 posts but advised to amend the by-laws of CPCB.

In view of the above, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the revision of pay scale of the Accounts Officer vide Resolution No. 104 dated 27.6.1996 has not been effected through any amendment of the relevant regulations.

The applicant in his pleadings in the OA (Paragraph 5 F under the headings Grounds) has referred to Rule 8 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975 which has the following provisions.

The above Rule though empowers to create posts with the sanction of Central Government, it does not empower to vary the pay scales of existing posts as per the Central Pollution Board (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers and Other Employees other than Member Secretary), Regulations, 1995. As it has been admitted by both the parties, the post of Account Officer was already there in the said regulations, hence, the ground taken by the applicant in the above Paragraph does not help the applicant to seek pay fixation as per FR 23 to retain the previously granted enhanced pay scale and Grade Pay to the present applicant when he was promoted as Accounts Officer on regular basis vide order dated 1.9.2009. Hence, the pay fixation of the applicant vide Office Order added 17.11.2008 (annexure-A5) is contrary to the rule position and the applicant cannot claim to retain the same pay and Grade Pay erroneously granted to him, which was in contravention of the extant service rules. Accordingly, we do not find any irregularity in declining the claim of the applicant to retain such pay already granted to him in irregular fashion.

Though the learned applicant has cited the judgment/order dated 16.07.2019 by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WPC No. 12054/2015, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has rightly distinguished the said judgment. Moreover, the issue framed here from the pleadings and submissions by both parties and the analysis carried out above, does not help the applicant in his favour.

In view of the above analysis, the present OA lacks merit and hence is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

All pending MAs, if any, are disposed of accordingly.