Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 495 (KER)

Union of India v. Ebenezer Rajakumar

2012-06-06

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, MANJULA CHELLUR

body2012
JUDGMENT : Manjula Chellur, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Senior Counsel Sri.O.V. Radhakrishnan for the respondent. 2. The respondent was the applicant before Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench(for short CAT). Aggrieved by the fixation of pay under the Central Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 2008 done by the petitioners herein, the applicant approached CAT seeking for a direction to refix his pay scale and other retirement benefits as per Annexure A2 pay fixation statement where he was allowed first increment in the revised pay structure on 01.01.2006 instead of 01.07.2006 prior to the issuance of clarificatory Office Memorandum dated 29.01.2009 by the Government of India. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent applicant was granted first stagnation increment of Rs.500/- due to him and the same was drawn on 01.01.2006 in the pre-revised scale. According to the petitioners, in view of clarificatory OM dated 29.01.2009 by the Director of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell, the applicant was not eligible for grant of both stagnation increment and revised pay scale increment, in the light of the proviso to Rule 10 of the revised pay scale rules and also clarification as mentioned above. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondent applicant was drawing the maximum of the scale as per the pre-revised scale in the year 2004. Therefore, as on 01.01.2006 he was entitled for stagnation increment in the pre-revised scale. Apparently it was also given to him. During the audit, objection was raised therefore it was withdrawn without notice to the applicant respondent. Therefore he had to approach CAT. 5. The relevant provisions applicable to the present case are Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 2008. As per Rule 3(1), the existing basic pay includes existing scale of pay and also stagnation increment, if any, but does not include any special pay etc. In order to apply the benefits under the revised pay rules, the criterion would be existing basic pay which includes stagnation Increment as well. Then coming to the next date of increment in the revised pay structure, Rule 10 and the provisos are relevant which read as under: "10. Date of next increment in the revised pay structure - There will be a uniform date of annual increment, viz, 1st July of every year. Then coming to the next date of increment in the revised pay structure, Rule 10 and the provisos are relevant which read as under: "10. Date of next increment in the revised pay structure - There will be a uniform date of annual increment, viz, 1st July of every year. Employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st of July will be eligible to be granted the increment. The first increment after fixation of pay on 01.01.2006 in the revised pay structure will be granted on 01.07.2006 for those employees for whom the date of next increment was between 1st July, 2006 to 1st January, 2007. Provided that in the case of persons who had been drawing maximum of the existing scale for more than a year as on the 1st day of January, 2006, the next increment in the revised pay structure shall be allowed on the 1st day of January, 2006. Thereafter, the provision of Rule 10 would apply. Provided that in cases where an employee reaches the maximum of his pay band, shall be placed in the next higher pay band after one year of reaching such a maximum. At the time of placement in the higher pay band, benefit of one increment will be provided. Thereafter, he will continue to move in the higher pay band till his pay in the pay band reaches the maximum of PB-4, after which no further increments will be granted.” 6. We are concerned with the first proviso to Rule 10 so far as the respondent applicant. The applicant was drawing maximum of Rs.22,400/- in the pre-revised pay scale since 01.01.2004. It is also not in dispute that as per the fifth pay revision rules, for every two years after reaching the maximum pay scale, one stagnation increment was provided. Before the six pay revision came into force this was in force and as per this, the respondent has to get his stagnation increment after two years from 01.01.2004. This happened to be on 01.01.2006. Incidentally as per proviso to Rule 10 of the Pay Revision Rules of 2008 the revised pay scale had to be applied with effect from 01.01.2006 or 01.07.2006 depending upon the employee enjoying maximum of the existing pay scale for more than one year or less than one year. This happened to be on 01.01.2006. Incidentally as per proviso to Rule 10 of the Pay Revision Rules of 2008 the revised pay scale had to be applied with effect from 01.01.2006 or 01.07.2006 depending upon the employee enjoying maximum of the existing pay scale for more than one year or less than one year. The date of increment would depend upon this period of one year and if it is less than one year, it would be 01.07.2006. 7. As already stated above, as a coincidence in the case of the respondent/applicant he was entitled for his stagnation increment as on 01.01.2006 and as he had already reached maximum of the existing scale for more than one year from 01.01.2004, he was also entitled for an increment on 01.01.2006 in the light of the revised pay structure. According to the petitioners, by virtue of the clarification statement received, clarification contained in Annexure A10, the Government servant was entitled either for stagnation increment or increment as per the revised pay structure. 8. CAT after taking into consideration the relevant rules and also the clarification statement as per Annexure A10 was justified in saying, this clarification statement would not override the rules in the absence of any such amendment brought to the rules itself. Apparently without this clarification and if the auditors had not raised the objection, even the department was of the opinion, the respondent applicant was entitled for stagnation increment as well as increment on account of revised pay structure. Only after the audit objection, because of this clarification referred to at Annexure A10, they withdrew the increment without giving an opportunity to the respondent applicant. 9. We are of the opinion in the light of Rule 10 of the Revised Pay Rules of 2008 which deals with grant of increment in the revised pay structure for a uniform date of annual increment depending upon the period of one year or less than the period of one year the effective date for giving increment would be uniformly applied. In that view of the matter, the case of the respondent applicant cannot be singled out on the ground of clarification as he happened to get both increments as a matter of coincidence on 01.01.2006. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the opinion of GAT and accordingly the original petition deserves to be dismissed and stands dismissed.