The Union of India (UOI) vs The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, N. Padmasani and N. Subbulakshmi

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.—The above two writ petitions are directed against the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal

in O.A. Nos. 99 and 100 of 2002 dated 1.2.2003, wherein the 2nd respondent in the above two writ petitions have assailed the correctness of the

Office Memorandum issued by the first petitioner herein after the V Pay Commission, which denied the benefit of the stagnated increments already

given to them.

The facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent in the above writ petitions/applicants were appointed as Chemical Assistant Grade II dated

19.12.1964 and 11.1.1964 respectively. Thereafter, they were posted as Assistant Grade I in the year 1967. Subsequently, they were further

promoted as Assistant Examiner during March 1975 and September 1995 respectively. Later, they were promoted as Chemical Examiner Grade

II in the year 1996 and Chemical Examiner Grade I in the years 1997 and 1998 respectively and thereafter, they continued their services till they

attained superannuation in the year 2002 and 2001 respectively. The applicants/the 2nd respondent in the above writ petitions had reached the

maximum in the old pay scale before 1996 and hence, they were accorded three stagnated increments during the year 1992, 1994 and 1996 and

as on 1.2.1996, their pay was Rs. 3500 + Rs. 300 as Personal Pay. While they were working as Chemical Examiners during the year 1996, V

Pay Commission came to be implemented with effect from 1.1.1996. Consequent on the implementation of the revised pay scale as per the 5th

Pay Commission, the benefit of stagnation increments, which were accorded to the applicants earlier, were denied. By virtue of the impugned

Office Memorandum dated 22.7.1998, in paragraph No. 3, it is stated that no Government Servant will become eligible for the first stagnation

increment in the revised scale of pay before 1.1.1998. Consequently, the period, if any, spent at the maximum of the pre-revised scales will not be

taken into account in determining the eligibility of the Government Servants to draw stagnation increments in the revised scales of pay. Similarly, the

stagnation increment, if any, already earned in the pre-revised scales of pay will not be counted towards the maximum of three increments

admissible in the revised pay scale. Hence, the 2nd respondent in the above writ petitions filed Original Applications before the first respondent

Tribunal and the Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the said applications, directing the respondents

therein to revise and re-fix the pay of the applicants by taking into consideration all the earned stagnation increments for the purpose of fixation of

pay with the revised scale of pay and also consequent payment of pension. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioners are constrained to file the

present writ petitions.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants/2nd respondent has contended that though the 2nd respondent in the writ petitions have

reached the maximum scale of Rs. 3500/-, they were paid Rs. 300/- each as personal pay and if paragraph No. 3 of the Office Memorandum is

implemented for fixing the revised pay scale as per the V Pay Commission, the other benefits including the pensionary benefits will be affected.

It was resisted by the petitioners herein by relying on the table of Pay Scales under Rule 7(ii)(b), which contemplates that if the amount so

arrived at is more than the maximum of the revised scale, the pay shall be fixed at the maximum of that scale. Therefore, in view of the above, as

the applicants reached the maximum scale of Rs. 3,500/-, they were paid stagnation increment of Rs. 100/- each on 1.2.992, 12.1994 and

1.2.1996 and after the implementation V Pay Commission, their pay-scales were fixed as 6500/- and were paid the maximum basic pay of Rs.

10,500/-, as per Rule 7(ii)(b). Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned order.

We have gone through the submissions made by both the counsels and after going through the materials placed on record, we are satisfied that

though it is asserted by the applicants that they have reached the maximum scale of Rs. 3500/- and granted three stagnation increments, therefore

receiving Rs. 3500/- + Rs. 300/- and hence, the same should have been taken into consideration while fixing the pay scale, as per Rule 7(ii)(b),

since the applicants reached the maximum pay of Rs. 3500/- in the pre-revised pay scale, after the V Pay Commission, their pay scales were fixed

at Rs. 6500-200-10500 and were paid the maximum basic pay of Rs. 10,500/- and hence, the reasons given by the Tribunal that merger of

stagnation increment already drawn by an employee would result in unequals being treated equals and stagnation increment is only personal pay

which shall be counted for all purposes such as DA, HRA, CCA, Pensionary benefit etc. including fixation of pay on promotion are not correct.

Though the applicants have drawn more than maximum pay of Rs. 3500/- + Rs. 300/- as stagnation increments before pre-pay revision, but as per

Rule 7(ii)(b), the maximum pay has to be limited to Rs. 3500/- for fixation/revision of pay as per V Pay Commission. Therefore, we agree with the

contentions made by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-Union of India.

In the result, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps. and W.V.M.P.

are closed. No costs.