BEFORE THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL (PRINCIPAL

BENCH), WEST BLOCK-VIII, RK PURAM, NEW DELHI

O.A. No. 4205/2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

SGT ASHOK KUMAR
(S. No. MS- ) ...Applicant
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. …Respondents
NDOH: . .2023
Court: 1.
INDEX

Sl No. Particulars Pages

1. Counter Affidavit on behalf of respondents
No. 1-4

2. Annexure R-1
Comparative Salary table of the applicant and referred
junior Sgt Pandita

3. Annexure R-2
Copy of Air Force Pay Rules, 2017 enforced
on January 1, 2016

4. Annexure R-3
Copy of SPECIAL AIR FORCE
INSTRUCTION No. 1/S/08
5. Application for condonation of delay under
rule 12(5) of AFT (P) Rules, 2008 on behalf
of the respondent no. 1-4.

6. Memo of Appearance on behalf of counsel

for respondents.

Filed By:

[Dr. Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan]

Advocate-on-record
Central Government Sr. Panel Counsel
Off: F-41, LGF, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi 24
Date: Mob.No.: 9310112323
Place: New Delhi E-mail: drv.mahndiyan@gmail.com
 BEFORE THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL (PRINCIPAL
BENCH), WEST BLOCK-VIII, RK PURAM, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4205/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
SGT ASHOK KUMAR
(S. No. MS- ) ...Applicant
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. …Respondents

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS No. 1-4

I,

……………………………………………………………………………

………… do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

A. That I am working………………………………………………...

I am authorized to sign and swear this Affidavit on behalf of

Respondents. I am conversant with the facts and

circumstances of the above case.

B. That I have gone through the contents of this OA filed by the

applicant and have understood the same and in response

thereto, it is vehemently submitted that the contents of the

same are wrong and hence denied except and otherwise

specifically admitted in the body of this Counter Affidavit.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

1. 779043-T Sgt Ashok Kumar AF Fit was enrolled on 12 Jan 04. He

was as LAC on 01 Feb 06 and further promoted to the rank of Cpl

on 19 Jan 09 and Sgt on 19 Jan 17.

2. The applicant has compared his pay with 779772-R Sgt R Pandita

AF Fit, Who is junior to him in same trade and drawing more pay

than the applicant as on 30 Nov23 i.e.(Rs. 48,200).

3. That the applicant failed to exercise migration option in 6th CPC on

promotion from 5th to 6th CPC which was the most beneficial option

available to him at that point of time.. As a result, his basic pay was

fixed at Rs. 7,050/- (default option) w.e.f. 01 Jan 2006. If he would

have exercised the option, his basic pay would have been fixed at

Rs. 7,490/- w.e.f. 01 Feb 2006.Subsequently, his basic pay was

fixed at Rs.35, 300- w.e.f 01 Jan 16 on migration from 6th CPC to

7th CPC (default option) Comparative statement of pay is annexed

herewith.
 4. Applicant’s IRLA has been reviewed and it is found that his pay

has been fixed correctly at all stages. In the instant case 779772-R

Sgt R Pandita AF Fit( quoted junior by the applicant) was

reclassified to LAC on 01 Jun 06 and had opted for migration

option on promotion from 5th to 6th CPC w.e.f 01 Jun 06,due to

which pay of quoted junior is more than the applicant.

5. However policy with regard to the most beneficial option is under

consideration and when any updates are received, the matter will

be duly communicated to the environment.

PARAWISE COMMENTS

(a) Reply to Para 1 779043-T Sgt Ashok Kumar AF Fit enrolled on 12

Jan 04.He was reclassified to LAC on 01 feb 06 and promoted to

Cpt on 19 Jan 09 and Sgt on 19 Jan 17.Applicant failed to exercise

migration option from 5th to 6th CPC on LAC reclassification w.e.f

01feb 06 which was the most beneficial option available to him at

that point of time. Consequently, his basic pay was fixed at Rs.7,

050-(Default option) w.e.f 01 Jan 06.

 In the instant case 779772-R Sgt Pandita AF Fit

(quoted junior by the applicant ) was reclassified to LAC on 01 Jun

06,opted for migration option on promotion from 5 th to 6th CPC, due

to which pay of applicant is lesser than compared to the

junior.However,policy with regard to most beneficial option is under

consideration.

(b) Reply to Para 2 Nil

(c) Reply to para 3 Nil

(d) Reply to Para 4.1 The averments made by the applicant is

denied. Applicants IRLA has been reviewed and it has been found

that his pay has been fixed at all stages correctly. Applicant had

not exercised the migration option from 5th to 6th CPC on LAC

reclassification w.e.f. 01 Feb 20006 which was the most beneficial

option available to him, unlike his referred junior which caused

lesser payment than the compared junior. The option was hosted

to all affected air warriors at that time and was actioned

accordingly.
(e) Reply to Para 4.2 The averment made by the applicant is

accepted up to the date of enrolment and promotion as a matter of

record. The pay of the applicant is less as he had not chosen any

option in the 6th CPC, unlike his referred junior. Consequently,

applicants basic pay was fixed at Rs. 7,050- (default option) w.e.f.

01 Jan 2006 as per policy in vogue.

(f) Reply to Para 4.3 The applicant was failed to exercise

migration option from 5th to 6th CPC on LAC reclassification w.e.f.

01 February 2006. Consequently, his basic pay was fixed at Rs.

7,050/- (default option) w.e.f. 01 Jan 06. In the instant case

779772-R Sgt R Pandita AF Fit (quoted as junior by the applicant)

was reclassified on 01 June 2006 and opted for the migration

option on promotion from 5th to 6th CPC, due to which the pay of

the applicant is lesser than the compared junior.

(g) Reply to para 4.4 Applicant had submitted representation vide

HQ WAC letter No WAC/2226/5/Accts(pay) BM – II dated 24 April

2023 and personal application dated 10 March 2023. The same

was applied appropriately on 09 June 2023 as per policy in vague.

(h) Reply to para 4.5 Applicant had submitted representation vide

HQ WAC letter No WAC/2226/5/Accts(pay) BM – II dated 24 April

2023 and personal application dated 10 March 2023. The same

was replied appropriately and duly on 09 June 2023 as per policy

in vogue.

(i) Reply to Para 4.6 The averment made by the applicant is

denied. The Applicant had not exercised any option in 6 th

CPC unlike his referred junior Stg Pandita. Consequently, his

basic pay was fixed at Rs. 7,050 (default option) w.e.f. 01

January 2006 as per policy in vague.

(j) Reply to Para 4.7 - 4.12 Nil comments

(k) Reply to Para 4.13 Applicant's IRLA has been reviewed and it is

found that his basic pay has been fixed correctly at all

stages. The option was given to all affected air warriors at

that time and was actioned accordingly. However, the

applicant had not chosen any option in the 6th CPC, unlike his

referred junior.
 (l) Reply to Para 4.14 Nil comments.

(m) Reply to Para 5 : GROUNDS FOR RELIEF

(aa) Reply to Para 5.A Nil comments

(ab) Reply to Para 5.B Most beneficial option is under consideration. As and

when any updates are received, the matter would be duly

coordinated to the environment.

(ac) Reply to Para 5.C nil comments

(ad) Reply to Para 5.D Applicants IRLA has been reviewed and it is found

that his pay has been fixed correctly at all stages. The option

was hosted to all the concerned air warriors at that time and

was actioned accordingly. Applicant had not chosen any

option in 6th CPC, unlike his preferred junior.

(ae) Reply to Para 5.E The option was hosted to all affected air warriors

at that time and was actioned accordingly.

 (af) Reply to Para 5.F Nil comments

(ag) Reply to Para 5.G The option was hosted to all affected air

warriors at that time and was actioned accordingly .Applicant

had not chosen any option in 6th CPC, unlike his referred

junior.

(ah) Reply to 5.H -5.L nil comments

(n) Reply to Para 6 Applicant raised the query vide ID No.

2023031248796 dated 24 March 2023 & ID No.

2023031246309 dated 07 Mar 23.The same was

appropriately replied.

(o) Reply to Para 7 Nil comments

(p) Reply to Para 8: Relief sought nil comments

(q) Reply to Para 9 Nil comment s