Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
G Ganapathy vs M/O Defence on 2 February, 2023
ry 4 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH DATED THIS 2%° DAY OF FEBURARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SMT MANJULA DASS, MEMBER (3) THE HON'BLE SHRI. T. JACOB, MEMBER (A) O.A. No. 310/00111/2014 L G. Gajapathy, Per. No. 868401, Chargeman, 2. J. Manoharan, Per.No.868394/ Chargeman, 3. Duraisekaran, Per.No.868400/ Chargeman, 4, Ekambaram, Per.No.868596/ Chargeman 5. C. Muninathan, Per.No.868543/ Chargeman, 6. K.R.Nehru Kennedy, Per No.868428/ Chargeman, 7. S.Tamilselvan, Per No.868619/Chargeman, 8. B.Loknath, Per,No.868591/ Chargeman, 9, K.Govindaswamy, Per, No.868431/Chargeman, 10. =. Parameswaran, Per, No.868411/Chargeman, ii. G. Nandagopal, Per, No.868559/ Chargeman, 12, 13. 14. is. 16. 17, 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 2/. 28, 29, C. Subramani Per.No.868621/ Chargeman, C. Narayanan Kutty, Per.No.868438/ Chargeman, K.J. Joseph, Per.No.868448/ Chargeman, S.Gopinathan, Per.No.868414/ Chargeman, V.Radhakrishnan, Per.No.868506/ Chargeman, R. Loganathakannan, Per.No.868413/Chargeman, Rajkumar, Per,No.8685471 Chargeman, -- K.K. Dixit, Per.No.868597/ Chargeman, N.Vedagiri, Per.No.868558/ Chargeman, G.Thirunavukkarasu, Per.No.868594/ Chargeman, K. Kumar, Per.No.868595/ Chargeman, T.Stephen, Per.No.868436/ Chargeman, H.Dilrious, Per.No.868392, Chargeman, A.S. Mohd. Rahamathulla, Per.No.868387/ Chargeman, T.K.Sugadhan, Per.No.868550/ Chargeman, R.Paulraj, Per.No.814220/ Chargeman, V.Devika, Per.No.868409/ Chargeman, K.V.Sethumadhavan, Per.No.868449/ Chargeman, ~ 30. 31. 32, 33. 34, 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Ad. 42, 43. 44, 45, 46, all are working at Ordnance Clothing Factory, S.Sitharthan, Per.No.868421/ Chargeman, CLR. Hari, Per.No.868538/ Chargeman, K.Babu, Per.No.868389/ Chargeman, R.Chandran, Per.No.868403/ Chargeman, R.Mohan, Per.No.868391/ Chargeman, W.Devaraj, Per.No.868544/ Chargeman, C.P.Thomas, Per.No.868447/ Chargeman, J. Shankar, Per.No.868412/ Chargeman, C.Palani, Per.No.868419/ Chargeman, Kuruvilla Joseph, Per.No.868507/ Chargeman, E.Rajagopal, Per.No.868416/ Ex-Chargeman, G.Vasantha, Per.No.868433/ Ex-Chargeman, M. Anthrayose, Per.No.868537/ Ex-Chargeman, K.Rukmangadan, Per.No.868408/ Ex-Chargeman, G.Rukmani, Per.No.868410/ Ex-Chargeman, K.Loganathan, Per No.868548/Chargeman, N.Elumalai, Per No.868590/Chargeman. Avadi, Chennai-600054 . Applicants a By Advocate M/s. Paul & Paul. Versus 1. Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production, South Block, New Delhi-110 001. 2. The Chairman, Ordnance Factories Board, 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkatta-700 001. 3. The General Manager, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Avadi, Chennai-600 054, ... Respondents By Advocate Mr. K. Kannan. ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. T. Jacob, Member (A)}) This OA has been filed by the applicant under Sec.i9 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
a). for quashing of the order No. 539/Estt./Pay.Fix dated 05.11.2013, 07.11.2013, 09.12.2013, 14.12.2013, 28.12.2013, 08.01.2014 & 22.01.2014, of the 3rd respondent as illegal and void; and
b). for a consequential direction to the respondents to give effect to the merger of pay scale of the employees as 6500 with effect from 01.01.2006 multiplied by formula 1.86 and fix their pay on .
that basis from 01.01.2006 and pay the arrears on such re- fixation, with all attendant benefits.
c). for such further or other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
DO 5
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:-
The applicants are working as Chargeman in the 3rd respondent factory. On the basis of recommendation of the VI Central Pay Commission, the pay scales of 5000-8000, 5500,-9000,-6500-10500 came to be merged into single pay scale of 6500-10500. Although, merger of the above pay scales had taken effect from 01.01.2006. The pay band of the employees of the 3rd respondent factory was fixed only on the basis of the premerger pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, 5000-9000, etc. after 01.01.2006. The issue of fixation of pay band on the basis of pre-merger pay scale applicable to the employees of the 3rd respondent factory was raised before the National Anomaly Committee, But however, the grievance of the employees was not accepted by the official side and the same was minuted in the proceedings of the meeting. ist applicant represented to the 3rd respondent, seeking for fixation of pay with effect from 01.01.2006 by applying the merger of pay of Rs.6500-10500 and plus the formula of 1.86 on such basis, with all consequential benefits of arrears. The above representation was rejected by the 3rd respondent and no acceptable reasons were mentioned in the rejection. Hence the present OA, challenging the rejection and for consequential direction for fixation of pay on the basis of merger with effect from 01.01.2006 and calculation of pay thereof and payment of arrears on such fixation.
3. The applicants have sought the aforesaid relief inter alia, on the following grounds:-
i) The action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the claim of the applicants in the facts and circumstances of the case is patently arbitrary, unjust, illegal and void.
ii). The rejection of the claim by the 3rd respondent in the face of the fact that similarly placed employees have been granted the benefit of -
merger of pay scales before their pay was fixed, is patently discriminatory, unreasonable, arbitrary and therefore violative of article 14 of Constitution of India.
iii). The rejection by the 3rd respondent on the basis of MOD notification dated 09.09.2008 without appreciating the fact that . admittedly the merger of pay scales had come into effect from 01.01.2006 and any pay fixation thereafter cannot be on the basis of pre merger pay scales. In as much as the impugned action suffers from non-application and misapplication of mind and hence unsustainable.
iv). The impugned rejection by the 3rd respondent in the face of the fact that this Hon'ble Tribunal has rendered decisions in favour of the employees in similar matters, is patently unjust, arbitrary, malafide and the same is a colourable exercise of power.
7)
v). The impugned rejection in the circumstances of the case is also opposed to the principle of "legitimate expectation" and therefore the same is unsustainable in faw.
vi). The impugned rejection in the face of the fact that the merger of pay scales was uniformly implemented and applied with effect from 01.01.2006 and the denial of the benefit for the purpose of fixation of pay is per se illegal and also opposed to the principles of promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel and hence the same is unsustainable in law.
vii). The impugned rejection in the face of the fact that identically placed employees have been granted the benefit of merger and in the absence of permissible classification, the impugned action clearly offends the equality clause enshrined in artide 14 of the Constitution of India. In as much as the impugned action is unconstitutional and liable to be interfered with.
vill). The impugned rejection by the 3rd respondent is even otherwise opposed to equity, fair play; good conscience and justice.
4. The counsel for the applicants relied on the decision by the Ernakulam and Allahabad Bench respectively in OA No. 856/2011 and OA 293/2011 in which, similar issue has already been considered and allowed by those Benches and submitted that these orders squarely apply to the case on hand.
5. | The respondents have filed a detailed reply. It is submitted by the . respondents that the application has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing of the Order No.539/Estt./Pay Fix dated 05.11.1013, 07.11.2013, 09.12.2013, 14.12.2013, 28.12.2013, 08.01.2014 & 22.01.2014 of the third Respondent Factory and for a consequential direction to the respondents to give effect to the merger of pay scale of the employees as 6500 with effect . from 01.01.2006 multiplied by formula 1.86 and fix their pay on that basis from 01.01.2006 and pay the arrears on such re-fixation with all attendant benefits. It is submitted that the applicants are not entitled for the relief sought for by them.
6. It is submitted that consequent upon the implementation of VI Central -- Pay Commission, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), New Delhi vide its notification GSR622(E) dated 29.08.2008 has made the rules namely, the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules-2008 and they shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of January-2006. In continuation of the above, the Ministry of Finance, New Delhi vide its OM -- No.1/2008-IC, dated 30.08.2008 inter-alia has issued instructions on how the Government servants are required to exercise the option for drawal of their pay in the revised pay structure in the format prescribed in the second schedule to the rules besides stating that the sequence of action to be taken on receipt of the option. Further the manner of the initial fixation of pay in the revised pay structure has been indicated in the rule 7 of the CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 and on the basis of this Rule, detailed Fixation Tables for each * by 9 | stage in each of the pre-revised scales have been worked out in the manner recommended by the VI Pay Commission besides directing that these may be used for the purpose of fixation in the revised pay structure as on 01.01.2006. Further, the Ministry of Finance, New Delhi has stated that the Fitment Tables in Annexure I will be applicable in cases where normal replacement pay scales have been approved by the Government. In case of up-gradation of post/merger of pre-revised pay scales, fixation of pay will be done as prescribed in Note 2A and 2B below Rule 7(1) and in the manner indicated in illustration 4-A and 4-B respectively of the explanatory memorandum to the CCS(RP) Rules, 2008.
7, The pay of the Civilians in Defence service has been regulated by the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi vide SRO 21E dated 09.09.2008 and these rules has been called as Civilians in Defence Services Revised Pay Rules 2008 which came into force from the first day of January, 2006 and according to _ which the initial pay of the 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 first 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 had not been suspended, and in respect of his pay in the officiating post held by him in the following manner namely:
(A) in the case of all employees 10
(i) The pay in the pay band/pay scales will be determined by multiplying the existing basic pay as on 01.01.2006 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. Tn 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. In the case . of HAG + scale, benefit of one increment for every two stages in the pre- revised scale will be granted in the revised pay scale. Tf 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) it 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.
(iii) 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,
8. While issuing the above rules, the M.O.D. has inter-alia notified the revised pay bands and grade pays for post carrying present scales in Group "A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' with merging of the following pre-revised scales, SI. Post/ | Pre-revised |Name of | Corresponding Corresponding No. | Grade | Scales Pay Pay Bands | Grade Pay Band/Scale | /Scales
1. | S-9 5000-150- | PB-2 9300-34800 | 4200 8000
2. |S-10 | 5500-175- | PB-2 9300-34800 | 4200 9000 .
3. |S-12 | 6500-200- | PB-2 9300-34800 | 4200 * 10500
4. |S-13 | 7450-225- | pB-2 9300-34800 | 4600 11500 * Subsequently modified to Rs.4600/- vide Ministry of Finance, New Delhi O.M.No.F.No.1/1/2008IC, dated 13.11.2009.
9. It is submitted that Ministry of Finance, New Delhi vide its F.No.1/1/2008IC, dated 13.09.2008 has issued clarification on the date of ~ next increment, the method of fixation of pay after 01.01.2006, using of fitment tables for cases of pay fixation under Rule 11 of CCS(RP) Rules, 12 2008, procedure of placing employees in upgraded scales in case of merger of scales/up-gradation recommended by the VI CPC etc, According to clarification 6 i.e. procedure for placing employees upgraded scales in case of merger of scales/up-gradation recommendation by the VI CPC, the Ministry has clarified that where all posts in one or more pre-revised given a common scales are merged with a higher pre-revised scale and replacement scale/grade pay, the suitability of incumbents need not be assessed for granting them the higher replacement scale of the Grade pay and the incumbents will be automatically granted replacement of the pay scale/grade pay recommended by the Commission and their pay will be fixed in accordance with the fitment table annexed to Finance Ministry OM of even No. dated 30.08.2008. Ministry of Finance vide O.M. F.No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 103.10.2008 has corroborated the provisions contained under Note 2A below 7 of the CCS(RP) Rules,2008 clarifying that in cases of upgradation of nosts as a result of recommendations of 6th CPC, the fitment table corresponding to the pre-revised scale shall be used for the purpose of determination of pay in the pay band and to the pay in the pay band so determined, the grade pay corresponding to the upgraded post is to be added. This will be the revised pay of the Government servant who has been upgraded as a result of the 6th CPC recommendation.
10. ™.O.D., New Delhi vide its No. 34(19)/08/US(OShas conveyed the sanction of the competent authority for merger of the post of Chargeman Gr-I(Both Technical and Non Technical/Store) in the pay scale of Rs.5500- at f 13 175-9000 ( pre-revised) and the post of Chargeman Gr-II (Both Technical and Non Technical/Store) in the pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000(Pre-revised) in the Ordnance Factories in a single grade of Chargeman I the ' corresponding pay band band (PB-2) of Rs.9300-34800 with a Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- under the provisions of sub-para(ii) Section-I, Part-B of CDS(RP) Rules, 2008 published vide SRO 21(E), vide letter No. dated 9th September 2008. Similarly OFB, Kolkatta vide letter No.3265/6th CPC/IMPL/2011/A/NG, dated 04.02.2011 has conveyed the sanction of the competent authority for * merger of the post of Asst.Foreman/Foreman/Store Holder in the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 (pre-revised) and the post of Junior Works Manager/T & NT in the pay scale of Rs.7450-225-11500 (Pre-revised) in a single grade of Junior Works Manager/T&NT in the corresponding pay band (PB-2) of Rs,9300-34800 with a Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- under the provisions of sub- ' para(ii) Section-I, and para XVITI(3) Section II, Part B of CDS(RP) Rules, 2008 published vide SRO 21(E), dated 9th September 2008. Besides, they have directed that the fixation of pay in revised structure will be done in accordance with respective fixation tables enclosed with Min. of Finance Dept. Expenditure (Implementation Cell) 0.M.No.1/1/2008-IC, ' dt.30.08.2008, a copy of which has been forwarded to this factory by the Ordnance Factory Board vide its instruction No.52/2009(PCC), dated 08.10.2009.
i1. Keeping in line with the above instructions, the pay of the members as shown in the list, only 20 applicants of the applicants were fixed taking into 14 account the basic pay drawn as on 01.01.2006 as they were holding the post . of Chargeman / Asst. Foreman.
12. In the above circumstances the plea of the applicants to re-fix the pay by applying the factor of Rs.6500 x 1.86 and consequently fix their pay at Rs.12090/-in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4200/- cannot be considered in the absence of specific Government instructions.
13. Itis submitted that out of 46 applicants as shown in the applicants list along with the OA, (only 20 applicants) were holding the post Chargeman as on 01.01.2006. Remaining 26 individuals in the applicants list were holding different trades/grades in the Industrial Establishment of this factory. Although the VI CPC while making several recommendation regarding pay structure applicable to the Central Govt. employees had recommended the merger of pay scale existed prior to 01.01.2006 i.e. 5000-8000, 5500-9000 and 6500-10500 into one common pay scale as 6500-10500 and the said recommendation was recommended by the Govt. and was implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the Min. of Def vide its SRO 21-E has categorically stated that the pay of the Govt. servant would be taken as on 01.01.2006 as per illustration shown in 4-B and hence they are not entitled to the merger of pay scale as 6500-10500/-.
14. It is submitted that the contention of applicants that after | implementation of recommendation of VI CPC, the applicants were granted grade pay of Rs.4200/-w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in the pay band-2 of Rs.9300- rm) 15 ~ 34800 is not correct as only 20 applicants as shown in the list were only granted the above said pay scale of grade pay and others 26 applicants were all in the Industrial Establishment holding different posts in different pay scales. While fixing the pay in the pay scales of grade Rs.2550-3200, 2610- 3540, 2610-4000 and 2750-4400 w.e.f. 01.01.2006,grade pay was fixed as | 2750/- and multiplying the same with formula of 1.86 for arriving basic pay of those employees is not correct as they were granted the following grade pay for the pre-revised scale as shown against each as the pay scales pertain to Group 'D' Employees.
Pre-revised Scale Grade pay Rs.2550-3200 Rs, 1300/- (iS Band} Rs.2610-3540 Rs. 1400/-(1S Band) Rs.2610-4000 Rs.1600/-(IS Band) Rs.2750-4400 Rs, 1800/- (PB-1) However, while fixing the initial pay of Group *D" employees (except Industrial Employees) pay structure was initially fixed in the IS Pay Band as per Clause 'A' and thereafter the Group 'D' employees who already possess revised minimum qualification were given the benefit of higher pay scale of _ PB-E w.e.f. 01.01.2006 with a Grade pay of Rs.1800/-, Group 'D' employees who do not possess the revised minimum qualification for entry into PB-1 will be retrained by the concerned department within a period 6 months so that the payments of arrears on account of un-gradation are not delayed. 16 After retraining such Group 'D' employees will be placed in PB-1 with the Grade Pay of Rs.i800/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondents pray for dismissal of the OA.
15. Learned counsel for the applicant have relied on the following - decisions in support of their contentions.
i. | Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors Vs. K. V. Rama Raju and Ors in civil appeal no. (s). 1350 of 2018 ii. Decision of the Chennai CAT in OA no. 363 of 2014 dated 24.09.2018 in the case of D. Ravichandran and others vs Union of India
16. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings and documents on record,
17. The facts of this case are not in dispute and the only question that needs adjudication is whether the fitment granted to the applicants while fixing their pay in revised scale of pay ts in accordance with the revised pay rules. It is not disputed that the matter is governed by Notification dated 29th August, 2008, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, which is deemed to have come into force w.e.f. ist January, © 2006.
18. It is settled law that in matters of pay fixation, the same being an exercise requiring going into various aspects and nature of duties, it is the expert body like the Pay Commission that considers and makes ~! 17 recommendations (State of UP vs. UP Sales Tax Officer Grade IT Assn. (2003) 6 SCC 250). The Revised Pay Rules, 2008 has been framed on the basis of VI Pay Commission Recommendations and the provisions thereof are to be applied for pay fixation. While interpreting the terms of pay fixation, as per the law relating to interpretation of statutes, it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Orient Paper & Industries Ltd. Vs. State of MP (2006) 12 SCC 468 as under:
"If the words used are capable of one construction only, then it would not be open to the courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. The spirit of the law may well be an elusive and unsafe
- guide and the supposed spirit can certainly be not given effect to in opposition to the plain language of the sections of the Act."
19. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors Vs. K. V. Rama Raju and Ors in civil appeal no. (s). 1350 of 2018 has held as under:
"It is clear that the pay had to be determined by multiplying the existing basic pay as on ist January, 2006 by a factor of 1.86 and rounding off the resultant figure to the next multiple of 10 in terms of the rule."
The view taken that the multiplying factor is to be applied to the revised pay-scale is contrary to the above rule.
We accordingly hold that under the relevant Rules, the pay-scale is to be determined by multiplying basic pay on ist January, 2006 by a factor of ©) 18 1.86. Thus, the view taken by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by Order dated 7th July, 2015 in O.A. NO.310/00173/2014, R. Karthikeyan & Ors, v. Union of India & Ors., is-upheld. Even though a writ | petition against the said order is said to be pending before the High Court of Madras, since the matter has arisen before us and we have considered the issue, we approve the said view. Contrary view on the subject stands set aside."
20. Keeping in view the above dictum, the rule relating to fixation of pay of the applicants have to be considered. The Ministry of Finance also has issued the clarifications in so far as the manner of fixation of pay and necessary fitment tables and a few illustrations as also have been given thereunder. How the pay in such a case has to be fixed where merger is involved has been explained vide Ilustration No. 4B, which reads as under:
1. Existing Scale of pay Rs. 5000-150-8000
2. Pay Band applicable PB 2 Rs. 9300-34800
3. Merged with the scale of pay Rs, 6500-200 - 10500
4. Existing basic pay as on 1.1.2006 Rs, 5600 wyeet Rs, 10,416 5, Pay after multiplication by a factor of 1.86 (Rounded off to Rs. 10420) 6, Pay in the Pay Band PB 2 Rs, 10420 ' 7, Pay in the Pay Band after including benefit of bunching, if admissible Rs.10420 8, Grade pay attached to the scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 R54200 9, Revised Basic Pay Total of pay in the pay Band Rs. 14620 plus Grade Pay ig
21. The above illustration gives no room for any other interpretation than the one already specified and in the instant case, the fallacy ih the calculation of pay by the applicant in arriving at Rs. 12,090/- could be explained in that . the applicants first brought their pay in the pre-revised pay scale to the minimum of Rs. 6500/- and then incremented the same with the multiplier of 1.86. Thus, 1.86 times of Rs. 6500 becomes Rs. 12,090/-. This calculation is in variation to the calculation given in the illustration 4B. The fixation , formula adopted is-first, the basic pay in the pre-revised pay scale is | my"Siplied by the multiplier 1.86, rounded off to the next denomination of Rs, 10/- and the resultant amount is placed in the pay band of PB-2 Rs. 9300-34800. if 1.86 times of the basic pay as on 01-01-2006 in the pre- revised pay scale happens to be less than the minimum of the broad band pay scale of Rs 9300 -- 34800, then the pay would be fixed at the minimum -- of Rs 9300 and grade pay of Rs 4,200 is added to it. If the contention of applicants that uniformly irrespective of the pay drawn as on 01- 01-2006 in es Pretevised pay, the pay is worked out at the rate of Rs 6500 multiplied by 1.86, then every individual would be placed at the same pay which is totally inappropriate. The revision of pay should be proportional to their pre- revised pay. This method alone would ensure that those in different stages -- of pay in the pre revised pay scale get uniform increase, proportional to their pre-revised pay, 3 ee tt ae owt
-
2 s . 20 22, There exists no such rule which supports the claim of the applicants The Respondents had not violated any Government orders on the subject. The applicants have not been discriminated in any way. The fixation of pay was made as on 01.01.2006 as per Ministry of Defence, New Delhi Notification No. F.No.11(1)/2008/D (Civ-I) dated 09.09.2008 and in accordance | with the fitment table annexed to Finance Ministry OM No.1/2008-IC dated 30.08.2008. -
23. The judgments relied upon by the applicant are inapplicable as()ey were rendered in different facts and circumstance of the cases than the one
- ,available-in-the present case.
2 In view .of the above, we find that the OA is devoid of merit and daeordingly:thessame-is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs, = or