Sanat Kumar Paul vs Union Of India And Ors

Akil Kureshi, CJ

This petition is filed by the original applicant who had filed O.A. No.166 of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. By the impugned judgment the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's original application. Thereupon present petition has been filed.

Brief facts are as under:

In the year 2012 when the petitioner was holding the post of Inspector of Police in the State Police Department, an occasion arose for him to opt for central deputation. With his willingness he was deputed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in National Investigation Agency (NIA, for short) under the Government of India. At the time of deputation the petitioner had a right to continue to be governed by his existing pay scale of the post on which he was holding substantive lien. In the alternative the petitioner could seek to be placed in the pay scale of the deputation post. The petitioner exercised such option in writing as per which he agreed to draw the pay in the pay band and the grade pay of the post of deputation and not that of his parent cadre. Consequently upon deputation pay fixation order was passed on 30th October, 2012. Relevant portion of this order reads as under:

"Consequent upon joining of Shri Sanat Kumar Paul, Inspr (UB) of Tripura Police as Dy. SP in NIA on deputation basis the pay of the official is fixed as under as per option exercised by him. He has opted to continue to draw pay on the existing scale of deputation post in Central Scales of pay as per DOPT OM dated 17.06.2010 as under:-

1.

Date of Joining in NIA as Dy SP

03.08.2012

2.

Basic pay on the date of joining as per LPC

B/Pay Rs.20,850/- G/Pay Rs. 3,500/-

3.

Add one notional increment

Rs. 740/-

4.

Add DA @ 35%

Rs. 8,523/-

5.

Revised Basic Pay. It should equate emoluments drawn in cadre post (Tripura) as per Para (ii) (b) of said OM

Rs.33,613/-

6.

Pay fixed on 03.08.2012 i.e. the date of joining in Central Pay Scales (by taking DA @ 72% as on 31.07.2012 in the minimum pay scale of the rank (15600-39100) with GP 5,400/-

B/Pay Rs.15,600/- G/Pay Rs. 5,400/- DA 72% Rs.15,120/- Rs.36,120/-

Illustration:33,613 x 100/172 = 19,542- 5,400(GP)=14,142/-

7.

Date of Next Increment

01.07.2013

In addition to above, he will get DA and other allowances at the Central Govt. rates as admissible from time to time. Besides he will get 25% of his Basic Pay and Grade Pay as Special Incentive."

The petitioner challenged the said order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench arguing that his basic pay plus grade pay as per the said pay fixation order is lesser than those he was enjoying during his service in the State Police Department. According to the petitioner the basic pay plus grade pay on the post of deputation came to Rs.21,000/- as against basic plus grade pay of Rs.24,350/- which was being paid to him as an Inspector of Police.

The Union of India opposed the petition before the Tribunal contending that the petitioner himself had exercised the option. It was open for him to have retained the pay fixation in his original post upon which he would be paid a lump sum deputation allowance. It was pointed out that the petitioner's total salary was higher in the deputation post. In the reply filed before the CAT it was pointed out that as per the last salary statement the petitioner was paid a gross salary of Rs.55,227/- as against the gross salary of Rs.37,809/- which he would have received in his post of Inspector of Police.

The Tribunal dismissed the original application holding that the pay fixation of the petitioner was done according to the rules and regulations. The petitioner had not suffered any monetary loss and the pay fixation was according to his option.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We do not see any reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. At the time of deputation the petitioner was given an option either to be governed by the pay scale and the grade pay of the post of deputation or be governed by his parent post. He consciously opted to be governed by the pay scale of the post on which he would be deputed. The petitioner has not raised any objection on the pay fixation in the post of deputation. His only objection appears to be that his basic pay plus pay band could not even fixed below what he was drawing in the post of Inspector of Police. Once he had opted to be governed by the pay scale of the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, this argument was not available to him, more particularly so when by way of gross salary by such pay he continued to draw was substantially higher than what he would have drawn had he continued to discharge his duties on the post of Inspector of Police or even had opted for continuation of pay scale of the said post with the facility of lump sum deputation allowance being paid to him.

In the result, petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s) if any, also stand disposed of.