Stepping up of Pay of Assistants/Steno Gr.

C of CSS/CSSS
A large number of references were received from individuals, cadre units and service Associations seeking clarification consequent upon the manner of fixation of par of Assistant of CSS prescribed by Department of Expenditure as per CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 and UO No. 10/1/2009-IC dated 14.12.2009. All the cadre units are directed to follow D/o Expenditures clarification of manner of fixation in the grade of Assistant and Stenographer Gr. C of CSS/CSSS as stated in D/o Expenditures UO: No. 10/1/2009-IC dated 14.12.2009.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision : 3.11.2012 CWP No. 18438 of 2010 Subhash Chander and others Versus ..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 13408 of 2010 Chandi Ram and others Versus

..... Respondent(s) ..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 20307 of 2010 Ashok Vashisth and others Versus

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 824 of 2011 Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and another

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

..... Respondent(s)

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases CWP No. 3856 of 2011 Satbir Singh and others Versus

-2-

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 4343 of 2011 Gayatri and others Versus

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 4347 of 2011 Manju Khurana and others Versus

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 6750 of 2011 Krishan Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others CWP No. 7034 of 2011 Mahesh Chander and others Versus State of Haryana and others

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

..... Respondent(s)

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases CWP No. 7663 of 2011 Ramesh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others CWP No. 8180 of 2011 Subhash Chander and others Versus

-3-

..... Petitioner(s)

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 10072 of 2011 Rajbir Singh and others Versus

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 11471 of 2011 Somvir Singh and others Versus

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 11689 of 2011 Sukh Pal Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

..... Respondent(s)

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases CWP No. 11770 of 2011 Chander Parkash and others Versus State of Haryana and others CWP No. 12431 of 2011 Pawan Kumar and others Versus

-4-

..... Petitioner(s)

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 13066 of 2011 Satvir Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others CWP No. 14669 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar and others Versus

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 15882 of 2011 Yudhbir Singh and others Versus

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others

..... Respondent(s)

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases CWP No. 17033 of 2011 Rajesh Kumar Yadav and others Versus State of Haryana and others CWP No. 18184 of 2011 Jai Kanwar and others Versus

-5-

..... Petitioner(s)

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 18352 of 2011 Raj Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others CWP No. 21003 of 2011 Sarjeet Singh and others Versus

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

..... Respondent(s) ..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 616 of 2012 Kulvender Singh and others Versus

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others

..... Respondent(s)

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases CWP No. 3101 of 2012 Monika and others Versus State of Haryana and others CWP No. 3898 of 2012 Umed Singh and others Versus

-6-

..... Petitioner(s)

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 6992 of 2012 Sanjay and others Versus

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 7978 of 2012 Jagdish Chander Verma and others Versus

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 10363 of 2012 Vijender Singh and others Versus

..... Respondent(s) ..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others

..... Respondent(s)

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases CWP No. 15170 of 2012 Rajender Singh Versus State of Haryana and others CWP No. 16062 of 2012 Ranvir Singh and others Versus

-7-

..... Petitioner(s)

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others

..... Respondent(s)

CWP No. 17949 of 2012 Seema and others Versus

..... Petitioner(s)

State of Haryana and others CWP No. 21256 of 2012 Kishan Lal and others Versus State of Haryana and others

..... Respondent(s)

..... Petitioner(s)

..... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Present:-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Mr. S.K. Tamak, Advocate, (in CWP No. 18438 of 2010) Mr. Umesh Narang, Advocate, (in CWPs No. 20307 of 2010 and 824, 11770, 14669, 15882, 17033, 18184 of 2011 and 616, 3898, 7978, 16062 of 2012)

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases

-8-

Mr. Vivek Arora, Advocate, (in CWPs No. 3856, 6750, 7034, 7663, 8180, 10072, 11471, 11689, 12431, 13066 of 2011) Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate, (in CWP No. 18352 of 2011) Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, (in CWP No. 21003 of 2011) Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate, (in CWP No. 15170 of 2012) Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, (in CWPs No. 3101, 6992 17949 of 2012) Mr. S.K. Redhu, Advocate, (in CWPs No. 4343, 4347 of 2011 and 10363, 21256 of 2012) for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG Haryana. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. By this order, I propose to decide Civil Writ Petitions No. 18438, 20307, 13408 of 2010 and 824, 3856, 4343, 4347, 6750, 7034, 7663, 8180, 10072, 11471, 11689, 11770, 12431, 13066, 14669, 15882, 17033, 18184 18352, 21003 of 2011 and 616, 3101, 3898, 6992, 7978, 10363, 15170, 16062, 17949, 21256 of 2012, as common questions of facts and law are involved in these cases which have been taken up together as per the request and on the consent of the counsel for the parties. For brevity, the facts are taken from CWP No. 18438 of 2010. Petitioners in these cases have approached this Court, impugning the order dated 14.6.2010 (Annexure-P-4), issued by the Government of Haryana, Department of Finance, interpreting Note 2 below Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (in short 'HCS(RP) Rules, 2008') and Note 2 below Rule 18 of the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2008 (in short 'HCS(ACP) Rules, 2008'), whereby under Clause III under the heading 'Interpretation', it has been stated that the proviso attached with the rules ibid would not be applicable in cases where the pre-revised pay scale of the post has been upgraded as indicated in Part-B of the 1st Schedule of the HCS(RP) Rules, 2008 and in column 4 of Schedule-I

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases

-9-

Part-I of the HCS(ACP) Rules, 2008, as the case may be, on the ground that this interpretation is alien to the statutory Rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and through executive/administration instructions, the statutory Rules cannot be amended, altered or modified and such action of the respondents is violative of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Shamsher Jang Bahadur and others, 1972 SLR 441 and further that the recovery cannot be effected from the petitioners as pay fixation had been done by the respondents on their own due to misinterpretation of the Rules. There are no allegations of mis-representation or fraud played by the petitioners and thus, the claim of the petitioners for no recovery is covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Budh Ram and others Versus State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) PLR 511. Reliance has also been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 18601 of 2006 titled as Om Parkash and others Versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 10.4.2008, wherein a similar situation had arisen under the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 and Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998, where again admissible bunching in the revised grades were initially granted but on a clarification issued by the Government of Haryana, the same was withdrawn which was challenged and the said challenge was upheld by this Court, holding the petitioners entitled to the grant of increment and the explanation issued by the Government of Haryana, to be violative of the statutory Rules and thus, not sustainable. Reply to the writ petition has been filed wherein it has been stated that the benefit of bunching was not applicable in those cases where the pay scale of an employee was revised by the Government in pre-revised scales

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases

-10-

prior to the new revision of the pay scale. The scale of the present petitioners were revised by the Government in pre-revised scales from Rs. 4500-7000 to Rs. 6500-10500, thus, the benefit claimed by the petitioners under the present writ petition was not admissible to them and the pay of the petitioners was rightly reduced by the respondents. It has been stated that the proviso

attached to Rule 7 of the HCS(RP) Rules, 2008 and Rule 18 of the HCS(ACP) Rules, 2008, shall not be applicable in such cases as that of the petitioners. Accordingly, it has been asserted that the petitioners are not entitled to the claim made by them in the present writ petition. Rule 7 of the HCS(RP) Rules, 2008 prescribes that where, in the fixation of pay, the pay of Government servants drawing pay at two or more consecutive stages in an existing scale gets bunched, that is to say, gets fixed in the revised pay structure at the same stage in the pay band, then, for every two stages so bunched, benefit of one increment shall be given so as to avoid bunching of more than two stages in the revised running pay bands. For the purpose, the increment will be calculated on the pay in the pay band. Grade pay would not be taken into account for the purpose of granting increments to alleviate bunching. On this basis, it has been stated that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit which was earlier granted to them and has now been withdrawn as per the order dated 14.6.2010, issued by the Government of Haryana, Department of Finance. Counsel for the parties have argued their cases referring to the statutory Rules and the impugned order and have made their submissions as per the pleadings referred to above. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases

-11-

For resolving the controversy, which has been raised in these writ petitions, reference to Rule 7 of the HCS(RP) Rules, 2008 and Rule 18 of the HCS(ACP) Rules, 2008, have to be necessarily made. Rule 7 of the HCS(RP) Rules, 2008 read as follows :7. Fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure : (1) The initial pay of a Government servant who elects or is deemed to have elected under sub-rule (3) of rule 6 to be governed by the revised pay structure on and from the 1st day of January, 2006, shall, unless in any case the Government by special order otherwise directs, be fixed separately in respect of his substantive pay in the permanent post on which he holds a lien or would have held a lien if it had not been suspended, and in respect of his pay in officiating post held by him, in the following manners namely:(A) In the case of all employees (i) The pay in the pay band/ pay scale will be determined by multiplying the existing basic pay as on 1.1.2006 by a factor of 1.86 and rounding off the resultant figure to the next multiple of 10. (ii) If the minimum of the revised pay band/ pay scale is more than the amount arrived at as per (i) above the pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the revised pay band/ pay scale: Provided further that: Where, in the fixation of pay, the pay of Government servants drawing pay at two or more consecutive stages in an existing scale gets bunched, that is to say, gets fixed in the revised pay structure at the same stage in the pay band, then, for every two stages so bunched, benefit of one increment shall be given so as to avoid bunching of more than two stages in the revised running pay bands. For the

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases purpose, the increment will be calculated on the pay in the pay band. Grade pay would not be taken into account for the purpose of granting increments to alleviate bunching. In the case of pay scales in higher administrative grade (HAG) in the pay band PB-4, benefit of increments due to bunching shall be given taking into account all the stages in different pay scales in this grade. If by stepping up of the pay as above, the pay of a Government servant gets fixed at a stage in the revised pay band/ pay scale (where applicable) which is higher than the stage in the revised pay band at which the pay of a Government servant who was drawing pay at the next higher stage or stages in the same existing scale is fixed, the pay of the latter shall also be stepped up only to the extent by which it falls short of that of the former. The pay in the pay band will be determined in the above manner. In addition to the pay in the pay band, grade pay corresponding to the existing scale will be payable. *[(A-1) In cases of employees belonging to the category of teachers and equivalent cadres in Universities and Colleges, provision under sub-clause (A) shall not apply and in its place, following shall apply to them: (i) The pay in the pay band will be determined by multiplying the existing basic pay as on 1.1.2006 by a factor of 1.86 and rounding off the resultant figure to the next multiple of 10. (ii) If the minimum of the revised pay band is more than the amount arrived at as per (i) above, the pay in the pay band shall be fixed at the minimum of the revised pay band.

-12-

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases Provided further that: (a) Where, in the fixation of pay, the pay of employees drawing pay at two or more consecutive stages in an existing scale gets fixed in the revised pay structure at the same stage in the pay band in PB-3, then, for every two stages so bunched, benefit of one increment shall be given so as to avoid bunching of more than two stages in the revised running pay band of PB-3. For this purpose, the increment will be calculated on the pay in the pay band alone and Grade pay would not be taken into account for the purpose of granting increments to alleviate bunching. (b) Where, in the fixation of the pay, the pay of employees drawing pay at four or more consecutive stages in an existing scale gets bunched, that is to say, gets fixed in the revised pay structure at the same stage in the pay band in PB-4, then, for up to the first four stages so bunched, benefit of one increment shall be given at the first place and thereafter for every two further subsequent stages so bunched, benefit of one further increment shall be given so as to avoid bunching of more than four stages in the revised running pay band of PB-4. For this purpose, the increment will be calculated on the pay in the pay band alone and Grade pay would not be taken into account for the purpose of granting increments to alleviate bunching. (c) If by stepping up of the pay as above, the pay of an employee gets fixed at a stage in the

-13-

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases revised pay band/ pay scale (where applicable) which is higher than the stage in the revised pay band at which the pay of an employee who was drawing pay at the next higher stage or stages in the same existing scale is fixed, the pay of the latter shall also be stepped up only to the extent by which it falls short of that of the former. (d) The pay in the pay band will be determined in the above manner and in addition to the pay in the pay band so arrived,, grade pay corresponding to the existing scale will be also be payable.] (B) In the case of employees who are in receipt of special pay/ allowance in addition to pay in the existing scale which has been recommended for replacement by a pay band and grade pay without any special pay/ allowance, pay shall be fixed in the revised pay structure in accordance with the provisions of (A) above. (C) In the case of employees who are in receipt of special pay component with any other nomenclature in addition to pay in the existing scales, such as personal pay for promoting small family norms, etc., and in whose case the same has been replaced in the revised pay structure with corresponding allowance/ pay at the same rate or at a different rate, the pay in the revised structure shall be fixed in accordance with the provisions of clause (A) above. In such cases the allowance at the new rate as recommended shall be drawn in addition to pay in the revised structure of pay from the date specified in the individual notifications related to these allowances.

-14-

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases (D) In the case of medical officers who are in receipt of Non-Practising Allowance (NPA), the pay in the revised pay structure shall be fixed in accordance with the provisions of clause (A) above except that, in such cases, the pre-revised dearness allowance appropriate to the non-practising allowance (excluding dearness pay component on NPA) admissible at index average 536 (1982=100) shall be added while fixing the pay in the revised pay band. Illustration 3 in Explanatory Memorandum to these rules may be referred to in this regard. Note 1. A Government servant who is on leave on the 1st day of January, 2006, and is entitled to leave salary shall become entitled to pay in the revised pay structure from 1.1.2006 or the date of option for the revised pay structure. Similarly, where a Government servant is on study leave on the first day of January, 2006, he will be entitled to the benefits under these rules from 1.1.2006 or the date of option. Note 2. Where a post has been upgraded as indicated in Part B of the First Schedule to these Rules, the fixation of pay in the applicable pay band will be done in the manner prescribed in accordance with clause (A) (i) and (ii) of rule 7 by multiplying the existing basic pay as on 1.1.2006 by a factor of 1.86 and rounding the resultant figure to the next multiple of 10. The Grade pay corresponding to the upgrade scale as indicated in column 6 of the Part-B of the First Schedule will be payable in addition. Illustration 4 in this

-15-

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases regard is in Explanatory Memorandum to these rules. Note 3.In case of Government servant under suspension, he shall continue to draw subsistence allowance based on existing scale of pay and his pay in the revised structure of pay will be subject to final order on the pending disciplinary proceedings or otherwise a final order, as the case may be. Note 4. Where the existing emoluments exceed the revised emoluments in the case of any Government servant, the difference shall be allowed as personal pay to be absorbed in future increases in pay. Note 5. Where in the fixation of pay under sub-rule (1), the pay of a Government servant, who, in the existing scale was drawing immediately before the 1st day of January, 2006, more pay than another Government servant junior to him in the same cadre, gets fixed in the revised pay band at a stage lower than that of such junior, his pay shall be stepped upto the same stage in the revised pay band as that of the junior. Note 6. Where a Government servant is in receipt of personal pay on the 1st day of January, 2006, which, together with his existing emoluments exceeds the revised emoluments, then the difference representing such excess shall be allowed to such Government servant as personal pay to be absorbed in future increases in pay. Note 7. In case where a senior Government servant promoted to a higher post before the 1st day

-16-

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases of January, 2006, draws less pay in the revised pay structure than his junior who is promoted to the higher post on or after the 1st day of January, 2006, the pay in the pay band of the senior Government servant should be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay in the pay band as fixed for his junior in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion of the junior Government servant subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions, namely: (a) both the junior and the senior Government servants should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical in the same cadre; (b) the pre-revised scale of pay and the revised grade pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be same; (c) the senior Government servants at the time of his promotion should have been drawing equal or more pay than the junior; (d) the anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of the provisions of CSR or any other rule or order regulating pay fixation on such promotion in the revised pay structure. If even in the lower post, the junior officer was drawing more pay in the pre-revised scale than the senior by virtue of any advance increments granted to him,

-17-

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases provision of this Note need not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer. (2) Subject to the provisions of rule 5, if the pay as fixed in the officiating post under sub-rule (1) is lower than the pay fixed in the substantive post, the former shall be fixed at the same stage as in the substantive pay.

-18-

Relevant part of the 1st Schedule, Part-B, referred to in Note 2 above, reads as follows :THE FIRST SCHEDULE, PART-A xxxxxxx xxxxxxx 15. xxxxxxx PART-B xxxxxxx xxxxxxx 6500-10500 5500-9000 5500-9000 5500-9000 PB-2 PB-2 PB-2 PB-2 4200 3600 3600 3600 Posts in Education Department i. JBT Teacher 4500-7000 ii. P.T.I 4500-7000 iii. Drawing Teacher 4500-7000 iv. Cutting & Tailoring 4500-7000
Teacher

xxxxxxx

v. Head Teacher
*Sr. No.

5500-9000 7450-11500

PB-2 4600

______________________________________________________________
Name of the Pre-revied pay Revised Pay post/Cadre scale as on Structure 1.1.06 Pay w.e.f. 1.1.06 Band/Grade Pay Further modified Pre-revised pay scale/revised pay structure Pay Band/Grade Pay

_________________________________________________________________________ (ii) PTI 4500-7000 9300-34800 6500-10500 9300-34800 Teacher PB-2 PB-2 GP-3600 GP-4200 (iii) Art & Craft 4500-7000 (Drawing Teacher) Cutting & Tailoring Teacher 4500-7000 9300-34800 PB-2 GP-3600 9300-34800 PB-2 GP-3600 6500-10500 9300-34800 PB-2 GP-4200 9300-34800 PB-2 GP-4200

(iii)

6500-10500

_________________________________________________________________________

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases

-19-

__________________________________________________________________________ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) __________________________________________________________________________ v. Head Teacher Primary School vi. Master vii. Language Teacher (Hindi/ Punjabi/Sanskrit & Hindi Teacher Primary) viii. Head Master Middle School ix. School Lecturer x. Head Master High School xi. Principal, Sr. Sec. School Dy. DEO/BEO/Asstt. Director (Academic) xii. DEO/DEEO/Principal, DIET/Dy. Director xiii. Joint Director/Director, SRC/ SCERT/Sharmik Vidyapeeth 5500-9000 5500-9000 5500-9000 6500-9900 6500-10500 7500-12000 8000-13500 7450-11500 7450-11500 7450-11500 7450-11500 7500-11500 8000-13500 10000-13900 PB2 PB2 PB2 PB2 PB2 PB2 PB3 4600 4600 4600 4600 4800 5400 6000 6400 7600

10000-13900 10000-15200 PB3 10000-15200 12000-16500 PB3

These instructions will take effect notionally w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and actually w.e.f. 01.09.2009. The pay of these categories of Teachers will be fixed as prescribed under the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

Rule 18 of the HCS(ACP) Rules, 2008 is analogous and, therefore, is not being reproduced herein as the interpretation, which has been put-forth, vide impugned order dated 14.6.2010 (Annexure-P-4), has the similar impact and effect. Petitioners in these writ petitions are working on regular basis on the posts of JBT/C&V teacher/Head teacher and all of them initially joined as JBT teachers and some of them have been subsequently promoted as head teacher. As per Rule 7 of the HCS(RP) Rules, 2008 and Rule 18 of the HCS (ACP) Rules, 2008 and the proviso provided thereunder deals with the initial pay fixation. A perusal of the proviso to Rule 7 of the HCS(RP) Rules, 2008, indicates beyond doubt that on re-fixation of pay in the revised pay scale, every employee is entitled to one increment if the pay gets bunched at two or more consecutive stages in an existing scale. Similar is the position if the pay

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases

-20-

is fixed/revised in assured career progression pay structure. Petitioners were given the benefit of this proviso and their pay was accordingly fixed which has now been withdrawn in the light of the order dated 14.6.2010, issued by the Government of Haryana, Department of Finance. Note 2 of the above Rules infact supports the claim of the petitioners, whose pre-revised pay scales of the post, have been upgraded as indicated in part-B of the 1st Schedule of the HCS(RP) Rules, 2008 and in column 4 of Schedule-I Part-I of the HCS(ACP) Rules, 2008. Proviso to Rule 7 makes it amply clear that the benefit of bunching has to be granted to those Government servants whose pay gets fixed in the revised pay structure at the same stage in the pay band at two or more consecutive stages in an existing scale. For every two stages so bunched, benefit of one increment shall be given so as to avoid bunching of more than two stages in the revised running pay bands. It further provides that for this purpose, the increment will be calculated in the pay of the relevant pay band. Note 2 to this Rule provides that where a post has been upgraded, as indicated in Part-B of the 1st Schedule of these Rules, the manner prescribed in accordance with Clause A (i) and (ii) of Rule 7 for fixation of pay in the applicable pay band will be done by multiplying the existing pay as on 1.1.2006 by a factor of 1.86 and rounding the resultant figure to the next multiple of 10. The grade pay corresponding to the upgraded scale as

indicated in column 6 of the Part-B of the 1st Schedule will be payable in addition. Illustration 4 referred to in Note 2 to Rule 17 further clarifies this position and supports the claim of the petitioners. Illustration 4 referred to in note 2 to Rule 17 reads as follows :-

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases

-21-

Illustration 4: Pay fixation in cases where posts have been upgraded e.g. posts in prerevised pay scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590 to Rs.3200-85-4900 scale 1. Existing Scale of Pay 2. Pay Band applicable 3. Upgraded to the Scale of Pay 4. Existing basic pay as on 1.1.2006 5. Pay after multiplication by a factor of 1.86 6. Pay in the Pay Band PB-2 7. Pay in the pay band after including benefit of bunching in the pre-revised Scale of Rs.3050-4590, if admissible 8. Grade Pay attached to the scale of Rs. 3200-4900 9. Revised basic pay- total of pay in the pay band and grade pay. Rs. 3050-4590 (Corresponding Grade Pay Rs.1900) PB-1 Rs.5200-20200 Rs. 3200-4900 (Corresponding Grade Pay Rs. 2000) Rs. 3125 Rs. 5813 (Rounded off to Rs. 5820) Rs. 5820 Rs. 5820

Rs. 2000 Rs.7820

A perusal of the above leaves no manner of doubt that the benefit of bunching in the pre-revised scale is admissible to the post where the prerevised pay scales have been upgraded. In the light of the above, the interpretation which has been putforth by the respondents through the impugned order dated 14.6.2010 (Annexure-P-4), stating therein that the proviso attached to Rule 7 of the HCS (RP) Rules, 2008 and Rule 18 of the HCS(ACP) Rules, 2008, is not applicable to the cases where the pay revision has been upgraded, is contrary to the Rules and, therefore, cannot sustain. By now it is a well settled principle of law that administrative orders/instructions cannot be issued against or beyond the statutory Rules and thus, cannot amend, add, alter or modify the statutory Rules, which has been sought to be done by the respondents, vide impugned order dated 14.6.2010 (Annexure-P-4). Administrative instructions can only

CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases

-22-

supplement and explain the statutory Rules, but cannot override nor set at naught the mere object of enactment, unless such an intention is clear and is permitted from the statute itself. Rules framed under Article 309 of the

Constitution of India has overriding effect upon the administrative instructions which although, may be subsequent, but contrary to the statute and thus, cannot survive. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 14.6.2010 (Annexure-P-4) is hereby quashed being contrary to the HCS(RP) Rules, 2008 and HCS(ACP) Rules, 2008. The writ petitions are allowed. The reduction of the pay of the petitioners in pursuance to the order dated 14.6.2010 (Annexure-P-4) consequently stands quashed. Recovery, if any, effected from the petitioners, on account of re-fixation of their pay on the basis of order dated 14.6.2010 (Annexure-P-4) be refunded to the respective petitioners within a period of three months from today. The consequential benefits to the petitioners be granted within a further period of two months.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 3.11.2012 sjks

Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam

K.K.Vijayan, S/O Krishnankutty ... vs The Principal Registrar on 13 July, 2012
ERNAKULAM BENCH O.A No. 856 /2011 Friday, this the 13th day of July, 2012. CORAM HON'BLE Dr K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Ms. K.NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. K.K.Vijayan, S/o Krishnankutty Panicker, Assistant, Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, Ernakulam, Permanent address: Kalarikkal House, P.O.Perincherry, Ollur, Trichur District. 2. Vatsala S.Nath, W/o Sabarinath, Court Master, Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, Ernakulam, Permanent address: "Ragam", Ulanad.P.O. Kulanada, Pandalam689 503. 3. K.R.Manoharan, S/o K.A.Raman, Upper Division Clerk, Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, Ernakulam, Permanent address: Kattukaran House, Kuzhupilly, P.O.Ayyampilly, Ernakulam District. - Applicants (By Advocate Mr T.C.Govindaswamy)

v. 1. The Principal Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. 2. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, Ernakulam, Kochi-17. 3. The Deputy Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, Ernakulam, Kochi-17. 4. Union of India represented by the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel, New Delhi-110 001. 5. Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi-110 001. .........- Respondents (By Advocate Mr Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil) This application having been finally heard on 06.07.2012, the Tribunal on 13.07.2012 delivered the following:

ORDER

HON'BLE Dr K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The legal issue involved in this OA pertains to parity in matters of fixation pay as on 01-01-2006 in the pay scale of Assistants in the Central Administrative Tribunal of Ernakulam Bench. The prayer of the applicants is as under:(a) Declare that the applicants are entitled to the benefit of fitment as granted to Shri T.Srinivasa, Assistant of the Bangalore Bench of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in terms of A7 and direct the respondents to fix the applicant's pay accordingly; (b) Declare that the applicants are entitled to be granted the benefit of Anenxures.A1,A2, A4 and A5 with effect from 15.9.2006 and to be thus granted the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10500 and an option to come over to the revised pay band plus GP with effect from that date, as has been granted to the Assistant/Stenographers Grade C of the Central Secretariat Service/Central Secretariat Stenographers Service; (c) Direct the respondents to grant the applicants the scale of pay of Rs. 650010500 with effect from 15.9.2006, with a further option to come over to the revised pay band plus GP with effect from 15.9.2006 after drawing the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500, with all consequential benefits of arrears of pay and allowances arising there from. (d) Award costs of and incidental to this application; (e) Pass such other orders or direction as deemed just fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. At the very outset it is to be mentioned that the counsel for the applicant submitted that if prayer at (a) above is allowed, the next two prayers become redundant for, prayers at (a) and (b) & (c) are in the alternative. 3. The facts capsule: The applicants are functioning respectively as Assistants, Court Master (stenographer Gr. 'C') and Upper Division Clerk in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The pay scales of both Assistant and Stenographer Gr. 'C' have been identical right from the beginning. The 3rd applicant has been afforded the second financial upgradation under the ACP scheme in the pay scale of Rs 5,500 - 9,000 w.e.f. 18-04-2005. Thus, for the purposes of this OA, since the claim relates to fixation of pay in the pay scale of an assistant, all the applicants are in the same pedestal. 4. The post of Assistant and stenographer Gr. C in the Central Administrative Tribunal has been right from the beginning equated with those of in the

Central Secretariat Services (CSS)/Central Secretariat Stenographers Services (CSSS) for all purposes. This historical parity has been reiterated in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.K. Sareen vs Union of India & Others (OA No. 777 of 1992 (decided on 20-12-1992) and later on in OA No. 164 of 2009 decided on 19-02- 2009. 5. Prior to 01-01-2006 the pay scale of the Assistants had been Rs 5,500-9000. On the recommendation of the VI Central Pay Commission, the pay scale of Assistants of the CSS and stenographers of the CSSS cadre underwent an upward revision from the above scale to Rs 6,500 - 10,500/- effective from 1509-2006 (Later on, the pay scale of Assistants in the CSS Cadre and the stenographer in the CSSS cadre was revised from 6,500 - 10,500 to 7450 11500) and in so far as further revision on the basis of the Revised Pay Rules, 2008, the pay scale admissible to these posts has been Rs 9,300 - 34,800 with grade pay of Rs 4,200/-. Since the revision of the pay scale in the pre-revised pay scale effective from 01-01-2006 was made effective from 15-09-2006, option had been made available for deferring the revision under the provisions of Rule 7 of the CCS(Revised Pay) Rule, 2008 to such assistants in CSS cadre and the Stenographers in the CSSS Cadre. Annexure A-4 note dated 23-062009 refers. A further clarification was issued with reference to the entitlement of those who have been granted the pay scale of Assistants as financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, vide Annexure A-5 note dated 14-122009. 6. In so far as the staff of Central Administrative Tribunal were concerned, since the above upward revision in the pre revised scale was not initially afforded, some of the Stenographers Gr. C moved the Principal Bench of the C.A.T. in OA No. 1165 of 2010 (Smt. Sunita Dutt and others) and the Tribunal by its order dated 09-04- 2010 directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to treat the entire OA as a representation and consider the claim of the applicants therein. And, the DoPT, on due consideration had issued an order dated 6th July, 2010 which reads as under:- "No.P20011/21/2010-AT Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel & Training New Delhi dated the 6th July,2010

ORDER Subject:- Implementation for the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission in respect of Assistants/Stenographers Gr.'C'/Court Masters in the Central Administrative Tribunal. Pursuant to the orders in OA No.1165/2010 and MA 866/2010 dated 9.4.2010 (Shri Sunita Dutt versus Union of India and others) Assistants/Stenographers Gr.'C'/Court Masters in the Central Administrative Tribunal are granted the revised pay structure as indicated below with effect from 1.1.2006. Designation Pre-revised pay scale Revised pay structure Pay Grade Band Pay Assistants/ Rs.5500-9000 PB-2 Rs.4600 Stenographers Gr.'C' Revised to Court Masters Rs.7450-225-11500) 2. This issues with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) vide its ID No.33(3)/2010-E.III(B) dated 21.06.2010 and the integrated Finance Division (MHA) vide their Dy.No.CF-61842/Fin.II dated 5.7.2010. Sd/- Manju Pandey Director" 7. It is to be noted here that by the time the above order came to be passed, the pay scale of the counterparts in CSSS cadre (as also CSS cadre) had been revised from 6500 - 10500 to 7450 - 11500). 8. Thus, the above would reflect that when the pay scale of Assistants and Stenographer Gr. 'C' in the C.A.T. had been revised from 5,500 - 9,000 to 7450 - 11500 directly, their counterparts in the CSS and CSSS cadre had the benefit of higher pay scale first in the scale of Rs 6,500 - 10,500 w.e.f. 15-092006 with the option available under the Revised Pay Rules and further the next scale of Rs 7,450 - 11500. This has resulted in some disparity consequent to which, the first applicant herein moved a representation dated 10-07-2009 for fixation of his pay in the scale of pay of Rs 6,500 - 10,500 vide Annexure A-6.

9. After the issue of the order dated 06-07-2010 (Annexure A-3) the Bangalore Bench of the C.A.T. had, vide Annexure A-7 order dated 23-11-2010, fixed the pay of one Shri T. Srinivasa, Assistant of C.A.T. Bangalore Bench. The individual was drawing the pay in the scale of Rs 5,500 - 9000 at the stage of Rs 6,000 as on 01-01-2006. On the basis of his option exercised under Rule 7 of the Pay Rules, 2008, his pay was fixed notionally w.e.f. 02-01-2006 in the pay scale of Rs 7,450 - 11,500 and actually in the revised pay scale of Rs 9,300 - 34,800 plus G.P. Of Rs 4,600 and the pay of the said individual as on 01-012006 came to be Rs 13,860 plus Grade Pay of Rs 4,600/-. The claim of the applicants is that their pay should also be fixed in the very same fashion as had been done in the case of Shri T. Srinivasa of the Bangalore Bench. Hence, this petition, with the reliefs as extracted above. 10. Respondents have contested the O.A. They have stated that in so far as the claim of the applicants as in prayer (b) and (c) at para 8, the same cannot be acceded to in view of the fact that the pay scale of the applicants has never been fixed at any stage in the scale of Rs 6,500 - 10,500 and as such. They have in fact sought clarification from the Nodal Ministry DoPT vide Annexure R 1(a) and (b) and the Ministry had informed the Principal Bench that that the pay should be fixed in accordance with the Revised Pay Rules, vide Annexure R1(c). In so far as the fixation of pay in the scale of Rs 7450 - 11,500, referring to the pay fixation in the case of T. Srinivasa, Assistant of the Bangalore Bench, the Respondents have stated that the same, in respect of the first applicant has been fixed vide order dated 20-01- 2012, at Annexure R1(d). Hence, the respondents have stated that the applicants are not entitled to any further relief. 11. Counsel for the applicants has taken us through various documents and stated that the claim of the applicant for fixation of pay in the scale of Rs 6,500 - 10,500 is not insisted in view of the fact that the pay scale had been directly revised from Rs 5,500 - 9,000 to Rs 7,450 - 11,500. In so far as fixation as contained in Annexure R1(d) is concerned, the counsel submitted that a comparison of the same with that of Annexure A-7 would reveal the difference in the fixation so granted to applicant No. 1. Referring to the table of concordance as contained in the RP Rule, 2008, the counsel submitted that whereas in the case of Shri T. Srinivasa the fixation has been on the basis of the pay fixed prior to revision in the latest pay scale was in the scale of Rs 7,450 11,500 as on 01-01-2006 and thereafter, pay fixed in the scale of 9,300 34,800 plus grade pay of Rs 4,600/- in the case of the applicant No. 1, the pay fixed is as on 01-01-2008. Thus, there is a difference of two years in the

applicant No. 1 reaching the pay of his counter part at Bangalore, as on 01-012006. In fact, applicant No. 1 had been enjoying the second financial upgradation since 11-02-2005 and he had been regularly promoted as Assistant on 01-01-2009. Thus, as on 01-01-2006 the pay of applicant No. 1 being that of Assistant, revision as on 01-01-2006 should have been made first in the scale of Rs 7450 - 11500 and thereafter, his pay fixed in the scale of Rs 9,300 34,800 plus grade pay of Rs 4,600/-. The counsel argued that since financial upgradation is in lieu of promotion to a particular post, there cannot be any difference in fixation of pay. 12. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the applicants are not entitled to any fixation with reference to the pay scale of Rs 6,500 - 10,500 and as regards fixation in the grade of Rs 7,450 - 11,500/- the latest order on 20-1-2012 vide Annexure R 1(d) would fulfill the requirement. 13. Arguments were heard and documents perused. The matter is not complex. The claim of the applicants is that the manner in which the Bangalore Bench had fixed the pay of Shri T. Srinivasa should be adopted in the pay fixation of the applicants as well. It is not the case of the respondents that the pay fixed by the Bangalore Bench is erroneous. Once the manner of fixation of pay is held not erroneous, justice demands that the same is adopted in all identical cases. Admittedly, the cases of Shri T. Srinivasa and the applicants in the present O.A. are identical. Be it promotion to the post of Assistant, or financial upgradation to the pay scale of Assistant, as long as both are prior to 01-012006, fixation of pay as on 01-01-2006 in the pay scale of Rs 7,450 - 11,500 first and thereafter, fixation in the revised scale of Rs 9300 - 34500 plus grade pay of Rs 4600 should be uniform. 14. In view of the above, the O.A. is allowed. Respondents are directed to adopt the same method of fixation of pay of the applicants as on 01-01-2006 first in the pay scale of Rs 7450 - 11500 notionally and actually thereafter in the pay scale of Rs 9300 - 34500 plus grade pay of Rs 4600/- as has been adopted in the case of T. Srinivasa of Bangalore Bench. This order may be complied with, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 15. Respondents may also consider this order as a judgment in rem and apply the same to others similarly situated, as the same would avoid multiplicity of litigation. In fact, the Apex Court in a number of cases and the V CPC in para 126.5 have emphasized such a practice. It is appropriate to cite the same as

hereunder:- (a) The Apex Court as early as in 1975 in the case of Amrit Lal Berry v. CCE, (1975) 4 SCC 714 , held as under:- We may, however, observe that when a citizen aggrieved by the action of a government department has approached the Court and obtained a declaration of law in his favour, others, in like circumstances, should be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the department concerned and to expect that they will be given the benefit of this declaration without the need to take their grievances to court. (b) In Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 648, the Apex Court has held as under:"... those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court. (c) The V Central Pay Commission in its recommendation, in regard to extension of benefit of court judgment to similarly situated, held as under:"126.5 - Extending judicial decisions in matters of a general nature to all similarly placed employees. - We have observed that frequently, in cases of service litigation involving many similarly placed employees, the benefit of judgment is only extended to those employees who had agitated the matter before the Tribunal/Court. This generates a lot of needless litigation. It also runs contrary to the judgment given by the Full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of C.S. Elias Ahmed and others v. UOI & others (O.A. Nos. 451 and 541 of 1991), wherein it was held that the entire class of employees who are similarly situated are required to be given the benefit of the decision whether or not they were parties to the original writ. Incidentally, this principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in this case as well as in numerous other judgments like G.C. Ghosh v. UOI, [ (1992) 19 ATC 94 (SC) ], dated 20-7-1998; K.I. Shepherd v. UOI [(JT 1987 (3) SC 600)]; Abid Hussain v. UOI [(JT 1987 (1) SC 147], etc. Accordingly, we recommend that decisions taken in one specific case either by the judiciary or the Government should be applied to all other identical cases without forcing the other employees to approach the court of law for an identical remedy or relief. We clarify that this decision will apply only in cases where a principle or common issue of general nature applicable to a group or category of Government employees is concerned and not to matters relating to a specific grievance or anomaly of an individual employee."

(d) In a latter case of Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P.,(2006) 10 SCC 346, , the Apex Court has referred to the decision in the case of State of Karnataka vs C Lalitha(2006) 2 SCC 747 as under: "29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. 16. No costs. Dated this the 13th day of July, 2012 ( K.NOORJEHAN ) (Dr K.B.S.RAJAN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

FA)VSneed Post

OFFICE OF THE PRTNCIPAL CONTROLLER OF ACCOUNTS (FyS) 1O-A. S.K.BOSE ROAD. KOLKATA- TOOOOI
No. Pay/Te ch-WA4l Lef 91 To
1

Cai L!.,,,0/./'

Date: 2l/03/2013

All Csof F&A(Fys.)lAll Br, A.Os.

sub:- Benefits of Bunching increments to Master craftsman

In continuation to this office eariier important circular of even no. dated 26il0812011 Point No.E) it is intimated that pay of the Master Craftsman who were drawing pay

on Olrcl/2006 may be fixed by allowing bunching benefit in terms of l't Proviso under Rule 7A(ii) of CDS(RP) Rules 2008 as per the table
5375(5th CPC) as given below:

between 4500

to

Pre-revised Basic Pay

(Rs.)

Pay in the Pay Band ( Revised Scale)

(Rs.)

Grade Pay
( Rs.)

4500 4625 4750 4875 5000 5125 5250 5375

9300 9300 9580 9580 9870

4200
420A

9870 10770 10170

4204 4200 4200 4200 4200 4200

fu-"^^=
Asst. Controller of Accounts (Fys) Copy to :T$66cretary dFB Kokata
.. for information.

6tY

b.,

Asst. Controller of Accounts (Fys)

Payflech/3/Desktop/Ds/04

4d*

CCS(RSA) Recognition

~ssociation of Radio & Televiston Engineering

Post Box No. 422, New Delhi -110 001
Regd. & Recognised by Govt. of India (Affiliated to U.Nl Geneva) Largest Employees Association of Electronic Media in India.
~ rill<!

Erl'ffJt()yeeS

Dated Ref.

wwwAa~!'fn.na.o,g

ARTEEi03io1l2013
--------

r/ U I';'

07.01.2013

Sh. Jawhar Sircar,

Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharati, PTI Building, New Delhi - 110001 Subject: Reminder for Request to stop discrimination being done by DG AIR & DG DD with Engg. Employees working in Pre revised Pay Scale of Rs 5000-8000 in Pay Fixation (denying Bunching benefit regarding). Ref: ARTEE/311/11/2012 dated 26.11.2012 about Request to stop discrimination being done by DG AIR & DG DD with Sr.Technicians working in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5000-9000 in fixation Pay Fixation. Respected Sir, With warm regards this is continuation of our letter ARTEE/311 /11 /20 12 dated 26.11.2012 about the subject stated above. Through the letter I requested your good office that similar benefit is extended to some of the categories while same is being denied to some. The thousands of employees falling in the criteria are looking towards your high office with hope for prompt and positive action. PI. note that even after passing one and half month no action is taken to remove the discrimination. It is also very disappointing that we have to plead for getting benefit of such orders which are being issued in continuation of 6th CPC recommendations and are being implemented in all other departments naturally. In my letter I clearly describe the procedure for fixation for granting benefit of bunching which is well supported by Govt. orders and provisions. The same is being done for some of staff by pick and choose method which is not good for cordial atmosphere of our offices. The fixation of 6th CPC i.r.o. Smt R. Radha, Steno, All India Radio, New Delhi which pay scale is Rs 50008000 in pre revised scale, if it is done then similarly our Sr Tech case has been treated similarly as per Order A-26022/02/2012-SI1 dated 3.10.2012 of Steno Gr II/Head Clerk. I want to inform you that same benefit is given to similarly place staff of Head Clerks/Stenographers/Accountants in Doordarshan also. It is beyond proportion that why the sub ordinate engg. Staff is being denied for the benefit. The benefit is granted after discussion in JCM Meeting with Staff representatives. lance again reproduce the para of the minutes of JCM Meeting. On this item, the staff side reiterated their demand that the Pay of the incumbents holding the pre revised Pay Scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 should have been fixed applying the multiplying factor of 1.86 at Rs 6500 with effect from 1-1-2006 implying thereby that the commencement point of the Pay Band-2 should be at Rs. 12090 based on Rs. 6500x1.86=12090 instead of Rs, 9300 computed by multiplying Rs. 5000 by 1.86. The Official Side Maintained that the Fitment tables are as much a part of the Sixth CPC report as in the narrative portion and hence the recommendations of the Sixth CPC have to be read in conjunction with the fitment tables .

'oO

...... contd

Zonal Offices
East Zone Post Box No-2713 Kolkata (WB) PIN-700001 North Zone Post Box No-331 New Delhi PIN-llOOOl North-East Zone Post Box ~o-83 Guwahati (Assam) PIN-781001 South Zone Post Box No-176 Triplicane, Chennai (TN) PIN-600005 West Zone Post Box No-1l228 Mumbai (MS) PIN-400020


Similarly the following pay has been fixed for pre revised scale 5000-150-8000 i.r.o. Sub Ordinate Engg. Employees like Engg.Asstts and Sr Technicians as per Gazette Notification Section II Part B illustration 4A with grade pay 4200/=. You are most politely requested to extend the Same benefit of Pay Fixation to the Sr.Tech working in the pre revised scale of Rs 5000-8000 so that justice can be done.

Thanking You,

vb
umeshc~/
President, ARTEE, 098717675714 umsharma01 @yahoo.com

cc for information to:

jsj?

[1]. Sh. L.D.Mandloi, DG AIR [2]. Sh. Tripurari Sharan, DG DO [3]. Sh. V.K.Singla, E.in.C., AIR [4]. Sh. R.K.Sinha, E.in.C, DO Office Copy.

.'

The bunching principles (compilation of views)

Fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure:

(1) The initial pay of a Government servant who elects, or is deemed to have elected under sub-rule (3) of rule 6 to be governed by the revised pay structure on and from the 1st day of January, 2006, shall, unless in any case the President by special order otherwise directs, be fixed separately in respect of his substantive pay in the permanent post on which he holds a lien or would have held a lien if it had not been suspended, and in respect of his pay in the officiating post held by him, in the following manner, namely :in the case of all employees:(i) The pay in the pay band/pay scale will be determined by multiplying the existing basic pay as on 1.1.2006 by a factor of 1.86 and rounding off the resultant figure to the next multiple of 10. (ii) if the minimum of the revised pay band/ pay scale is more than the amount arrived at as per (i) above, the pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the revised pay band/pay scale; Provided further that:- Where, in the fixation of pay, the pay of Government servants drawing pay at two or more consecutive stages in an existing scale gets bunched, that is to say, gets fixed in the revised pay structure at the same stage in the pay band, then, for every two stages so bunched, benefit of one increment shall be given so as to avoid bunching of more than two stages in the revised running pay bands. For this purpose, the increment will be calculated on the pay in the pay band. Grade pay would not be taken into account for the purpose of granting increments to alleviate bunching. (iii) If u look carefully all the fitment tables especially from Rs.2550-3200/-, u will find the answer. Since 5200 is the minimum fixed for PB_1, Rs.2550/- is fixed as 5200/-. Another stage is also fixed at the same stage. Thereafter one increment is given after every two stages. This is the basic of bunching and is in accordance with Note 2A and also clause A (ii) below Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. (iv) Now take an example of upgradation of pay scale from Rs.4000-6000 to 45007000. An employee who is drawing basic pay of Rs4000/- in pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-, his pay will be fixed at the minimum of corresponding pay in upgraded scale of Rs.4500-7000/- i.e. Rs.8300/- with grade pay of Rs.2800/-. Similarly employee drawing pay at Rs.4100 will also draw pay of Rs8300/- in upgraded scale. But the employee, who is drawing Rs4200 /- Basic, will be fixed at Rs.8300+one increment @3%. After every two stages one increment will be given till it reaches at the stage which is higher than Basic in pre-revised scale*1.86. Illustration 4A of Notification dated 29.08.08 also endorsed it. (v) The Para 1 given an illustration 4A for the purpose of fixation. When we look into illustration 4A appeared in gazette Notification page No.63 it appears an amount of Rs.240/- has been given as bunching benefit. i.e.., the pay arrived for the existing 3125x1.86= 5813 and after rounding it is 5820. When bunching is

(2)

/10u/

provided (i.e.., 5820+1900=7720x3%=231.60 which is rounded as Rs.240/-) the basic was fixed as 6060(5820+240). Here two points are to be noted i.e.., 1. Grade Pay also considered for granting increments to alleviate bunching. 2. Even for one stage (Rs.3050+75=3125) in 3050-75-3950 granted one bunching. (vi) The 3rd Para of the OM states an employee drawing 3575 in the scale 3050-754590 (i.e.., 7th stage in the scale) has fixed only 6650 (3575x1.86) i.e.., without any bunching in the 7th stage in a particular scale when his scale was upgraded. (vii) Further to add, the gazette notification page No.35 (i.e.., Rule 7 (A) under (ii) 2nd Para stipulates where in the fixation of pay, the pay of government servants drawing pay at two or more consecutive stages in an existing scale gets bunched, this is to say, gets fixed in the revised pay structure at the same stage in the pay band, then for every two stages so bunched, the benefit of one increment shall be given. Grade pay would not be taken into account for the purchase of granting increments to alleviate bunching. (viii) If so the employee who was drawing 3575 in the scale of 3050-75-4590 (i.e... 7th stage in the scale) must get at least 3 increments (i.e... One each for two stages). One increment for bunching would be 6650x3% = Rs.200/- . So his pay would have been fixed 6650+600 (200x3) = 7250. Whereas the MOF in the said OM vide Para 3 fixed only Rs.6650 (ix) Further, the 4th Para of the said OM stipules the procedure is to be adopted in all cases where pay scales have been upgraded by the pay commission in all the departments including Central secretariat and other common categories which also reflects the fixation in the Central secretariat and field offices are one and same. Then how the CSS alone can fix the pay of assistants in the fitment table of 6500-10,500 (i.e... First fixing in 6500-10,500 and there after multiplied by 1.86). (x) a. CPC recommendations: a. Merged pre 5000-7000 and 5500-8000 with 6500-10,500 and suggested normal replacement pay structure of grade pay of Rs. 4200 in PB-2 and made parity between Field and Secretariat Offices. This parity will need to be absolute till the grade of Assistant. 3.8.1. Common categories of staff are those categories that are engaged in similar functions spread across various Ministries/departments /organizations of the Central Government. These categories are not limited to any specific ministry of department and, therefore, any decision taken for them impacts more than one Ministry/department/organization 3.1.4: Earlier, the respective pay scales of rs.5500-9000 and 5000-8000 existed for Assistants in secretariat and in Field offices. This disparity was aggravated in 2006 when the Government further upgraded the pay scales of Assistants belonging to Central Secretariat service to 6500-10,500.

/10u/

Para 3.1.13. Demand of separate secretariat allowance for various posts belong to CSS, CSSS, cSCs etc. cannot be accepted. 3.1.14. In accordance with the principle established in the earlier paragraphs, parity between Field and Secretariat Offices has been established and recommended... b. CSS (RP) Rules 2008 The government vide (ii) Section I, Part B of the First Schedule to CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 approved the recommendation of the 6th cpc and made parity up to the level Assistants in the field office and Secretariat office by merging three scales (pre-5000, 5500 and 6500) and further upgraded to 7450-11,500 with GP 4600. The government also stated in the Revised RP rules, if the post of scale pre-650010,500 carrying minimum qualification of either Degree in Engg/Law should also be upgraded and placed in 7450-11,500 with GP4600 straight away without consulting the Ministry of Finance. Ministry of Finance vide OM F.No.1/1/2008-IC dated13th November, 2009 upgraded all the above three merged scales and granted GP 4600 to all those drawn GP4200 from 1.1.2006 in revised pay structure. The MOF also Vide OM F.No.1/1/2008-IC 16.11.2009 extended the same up gradation to Central Secretariat also with effect from 1.1.2006. It is also clear from the cpc report, government resolution that the field offices and CSS are eligible the revised pay from 1.1.2006 in the upgraded scale. Even the independent revision done by CSS from 15.9.2006 was also not agreed by CPC and no were recommended to retain the revision and hence there is no question of separate option for them from 15.9.2006. In view of these directions, whatever benefit extended in the Central Secretariat up to the level of Assistant should be given to the field offices also. 2. Regarding fixation of pay The CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 Page No.34 i.e.., Rule 7 (1) (A) (ii) says if the minimum of the revised pay band/pay scale is more than the amount arrived at as per multiplication (existing basic pay x 1.86), the pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the revised pay band/pay scale. There are merged scales and upgraded scales in the pre-revised scales and its corresponding pay band also. Hence first the multiplication will be based on the applicable/existing pay has to be arrived first in the pre-revised merged/upgraded as on 1.1.2006 and thereafter to be multiplied by 1.86. Accordingly the fixation has been done (7450x1.86+4600) in the Central Secretariat in the minimum of 7450-11,500 even for UDCs were promoted to Assistants.

/10u/

3. Bunching (for every two stages one increment each) without upgradation. The CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 Page No.34 i.e.., Rule 7 (1) (A) (ii) says provided further that: Where, the fixation of pay, the pay of the Government servants drawing pay at two or more consecutive stages in an existing scale gets bunched, that is to say, gets fixed in the revised pay structure at the same stage in the pay band, then, for every two stages so bunched, benefit of one increment shall be given so as to avoid bunching of more than two stages in the revised running pay bands. For this purpose, the increment will be calculated on the pay in the pay band. Grade pay would not be taken into account for the purpose of granting increments to alleviate bunching. Example for pay band in PB.2 for 9300-34,800; for the basic of 5300, the pay arrived will be Rs. 9860 (for 5300x1.86 in 5000-8000) and for 6025, the pay will arrive as Rs.11, 210(for 6025x1.86 in 5500-9000) and for 7300 will arrive as Rs.13, 580 (7300x1.86 in 6500-10500). Eg.1: 5000-150-8000 scale. 5300-5000 = 300 difference i.e. 2 stages (150x2) so one increment i.e., 3%9860 =300 His pay will be 9860+300= 10,160 in PB-2 with 4600 GP. E.g. 2: 5500-175-9000 scale. 6025-5500=525 difference i.e. 175x3 stages. So he will also get one increment i.e. 3%of 11,210=340 His pay will be 11,210+340=11550 in PB-2 with 4600 GP Eg.3. 6500-200-10,500 scale 7300-6500=800 difference i.e.., 200x4 stages. So he will get 4 increments 3%13,770=420 x2 His pay will be 13,770+840=14610 in PB-2 with 4600 GP. 3. Bunching with upgradation to 7450-11,500 scale and fixing in the minimum Eg.1: For the above basic of 5300 will get 7450x1.86=13860+420= 14280+4600 (Rs.420 is 3% of 13860) Eg.2: For the above basic of 6025 =14280+4600 Eg.3: For the above basic of 13860+840=14700+4600 4. Stepping up of pay The CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 Page No.34 i.e.., Rule 7 (1) (D) Note10 says(Page No.38) In case where a senior government servant promoted to a higher post before the 1st day of January 2006 draws less pay in the revised pay structure than his junior who is promoted to the higher post on or after the 1st day of January, 2006, the pay in the pay band of the senior government servant should be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay in the pay band as fixed for his 4 will 7300 get 7450x1.86=13860+420 get 7450x1.86=

will

/10u/

junior in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion of the junior Government servant subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions. The P&NG, Ministry of External Affairs and Secretariat staff have already fixed and claimed the arrears. The Hon'ble CAT principal Bench Delhi in OA 164ordereddated 19.2.2009 ordered the MOF and DOPT that denial of pay fixation to field offices as was done in CSS, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16th of the Constitution of India, quoting the concerned paragraphs of the CPC report 3.1.14 and 7.32.15 etc. etc since parity has been made. Further, the OM No.1/1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008 says that the fitment table is not applicable for the upgraded and merged scales. In case of upgradation of posts and merger of pre-revised pay scales, fixation of pay will be done as prescribed in Note 2A and 2B below Rule 7(1).

/10u/