Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dhirendra Tilak vs Defence on 3 July, 2025
Item No.70 (Court -5) O.A. No.708/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.708/2023
This the 03rd day of July, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Dhirendra Tilak, Aged-39
Aged 39 Years, S/o Sh.
Santosh Kumar Tilak, Working as Instrument
Mechanic I in 505 Army Base Workshop,
Mechanic-I
Delhi. R/o P54/04, New Chitra Line,
CVD Quarters, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt.
Cantt.-10.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Sha
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, South
Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Commandant, 505, Army Base
Workshop, Delhi Cantt.-10.
Cantt.
3. The Commandant, Static Workshop, EME,
Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, Mhow
(MP)
(MP)-453441.
4. Local Audit Officer, 505, Army Base
Workshop, Delhi Cantt.-110010.
Cantt.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Vivek Gupta)
Page 1 of 7
Item No.70 (Court -5) O.A. No.708/2023
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
(J):-
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
relief(s) "(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 (Annex.A/1) and 17.10.2022 (Annex.A/2) declaring to the effect that the same is illegal and arbitrary and against the rules and cons consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to protect the pay scale of the applicant at the time of his redeployment with all the consequential benefits.
ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents not to recover any amount from the applicant in compliance of the order dated 28.10.2022.
iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant including the costs of litigation."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the Highlighting applicant submits that it is not in dispute that the applicant was declared surplus in the year 2012 and redeployed vide order dated 15.03.20 . It is the contention of the learned counsel for the 15.03.2013.
applicant ant that redeployment has to be on the basis of the last pay scale, whereas the respondents have passed the impugned order on the premise that the applicant is not entitled to the last pay scale but the last pay drawn. He also highlights that the learned ccounsel for the respondents was directed to take appropriate instructions in terms of the para of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the applicant vide order dated 07.10.2024, which reads as under: Page 2 of 7
Item No.70 (Court -5) O.A. No.708/2023 "Let the learned counsel for the respondents take appropriate instructions in terms of the following para of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the applicant, within two weeks:-
weeks:
"It is relevant to mention here that recently Directorate General of EME vide order dated 16.06.2022 also clarified as under;
"(b)
(b) An individual adjusted in lower scale of pay due to non non-availability of matching scale of pay will be allowed to carry his previous scale of pay along with him/her, even if he/she was officiating in it, in accordance with Para 19 of AO 12/2020/MP-4."
12/2020/MP It is submitted that the respondent No.4 who has no authority and power to issue any clarification or guidelines vide order dated 28.10.2022 stated and directed as under;
"l. Previous pay of the scale" considered as last pay scale drawn in his previous unit at the time- individual declared surplus.
2. Individual may get pay protection in the following manner (under FR15) Individual pay as on 01.07.2012 10,660 + 2800 GP Individual pay as on 15.03.2013 in New unit 10,660 +2400 +400/- Pay Protection (Pay Protection i.e. Rs.400/- will be merged at the time of next increment., IR, if any, to continue till the next date of hearing."
3. He further highlights highlights that this Tribunal, vide order dated 12.04.2023 passed the following interim order:
"We are of the considered view that in case the operation of the impugned order is stayed for some time, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondents. However, However, if the said order is implemented, the matter may get further complicated.
Accordingly, by way of an interim order, the operation of the order dated 28.10.2022 is stayed till the next date.
We would appreciate it if the counter reply is filed expeditiousl expeditiously so that the matter can be finally decided."Page 3 of 7
Item No.70 (Court -5) O.A. No.708/2023
4. Learned counsel for the applicant also draws our attention to Clause 5(ii) of the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990, which reads as under:
"(ii)
(ii) when redeployed in a post carrying a lower scal scale of pay, the surplus employee shall be permitted to carry his current pay scale along with him to the next post but this benefit shall not be extended where, despite availability of a post in a matching or a higher pay scale, a person is redeployed in a post post carrying a lower pay scale at his own request.
request."
5. Opposing the grant of relief, the learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments made in the counter affidavit. He submits that the order has been passed in the right perspective as per the rule position. Highlighting the brief facts of the case, he submits that the facts of the present case are not in dispute. It is only based on the PCDA (WC) advised to submit the case with detailed justification for their further necessary action vide letter no. Pay/II/Tech/Misc dated 26 Jul 2021 (Annexure (Annexure-IX). The case was resubmitted to LAO 505 ABW vide this office letter no. PF/5877/Est(Ind)/2021 dated 08 Sep 2021 (Annexure (Annexure-X). Further, PCDA (WC) Chandigarh was again approached vide letter No L/WS/160/Gen dated 09 Nov 2021. PCDA (WC) Chandigarh L/WS/160/Gen replied vide their letter no. Pay/II/Tech/Misc dated 29 Nov 2021 (Annexure XI) copy received vide LAO 505 ABW letter No. (Annexure-XI) L/WS/160/Gen dated 15 Nov 2021, as under:
under:-
"Kindly refer to the letter cited at reference reference, please refer to the para-5 of the Central Services (Redeployment of Surplus Staff)Rule, 1990, which is self explanatory. Further in case of recovery of wrong/excess payment self-explanatory.Page 4 of 7
Item No.70 (Court -5) O.A. No.708/2023 made to the said individual, action may be taken as per the DoPT OM bearing No. 18/03/2015-Estt(Pay-I) 1 I) dated 2nd March 2016 (Annexure (Annexure-
XII). Moreover, in case of any doubt arises in the above case, the same may be forwarded along with views of your office for further necessary action at this end."
6. He further states that the LAO 505 ABW was again approached for advice on how to protect the pay of the applicant under the adjustment of surplus against deficiency in th the workshop vide letter No. PF/5877/DT/Est(Ind)/2022 dated 05 Sep 2022 Annexure XIII. In this regard, LAO, 505 ABW forward Annexure-XIII. forwarded a copy of PCDA (WC) Chandigarh letter No. Pay/II/Tech/Misc dated 17 Oct 2022 Annexure-XIV Annexure XIV vide their letter No. L/WS/160/Gen Corrs dt 28 Oct 2022 Annexure-XV, Annexure XV, which is furnished as under:
under:-
"1. "Previous pay of the scale" means last pay scale drawn by th the Official in his previous unit/Office at the time, he has been declared surplus.
2. As the individual willingly opt for lower grade in his present unit, Individual may draw lower pay scale i.e 2400/ 2400/-GP and also get pay protection in the following manner-:
manner (under FR FR-15).
Individual pay as on 01.07.2012 10,660+2800 GP Individual pay as on 15.03.2013 10,660+2400+400/ 10,660+2400+400/- Pay Protection in new unit. (Pay Protection i.e., Rs.400/ Rs.400/- will be merged at the time of next increment)
7. Having heard counsel for the respect respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record, we observe that except for the aforesaid, no concrete reasoning has been assigned as to why the applicant has been granted last pay drawn instead of the rules position as already noted above, i.e., Rule 5(ii) of the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990, which stipulates that Page 5 of 7 Item No.70 (Court -5) O.A. No.708/2023 a person who is redeployed on a lower post carrying a lower pay scale, his pay scale has to be protected, i.e., the existing pay scale.
8. It is also noticeable that videe order dated 16.06.2022 bearing the subject Protection of seniority and pay of employees on transfer in public interest, the provisions of AO 12/2020/MP 12/2020/MP-4 & CPRO 73/73 have been apprised. For the sake of better understanding, the same is reproduced herein below:
"2. In this connection, the following provisions of AO 12/2020/MP 12/2020/MP-4 & CPRO 73/73 as amended by 11/75 are apprised herewith:
2. In this connection, the following provisions of AO 12/2020/MP 12/2020/MP-4 & CPRO 73/73 as amended by 11/75 are apprised herewith:
herewith:-
(a) "The employees who are offered equivalent/ lower appointment under these orders due to lack of vacancies in their own grade/ trade will be informed in writing the pay scale of the new appointment before they are issued with movement orders, in accordaccordance with Para 18 of AO 12/2020/MP 12/2020/MP-4."
(b) "An individual adjusted in lower scale of pay due to non non-availability of matching scale of pay will be allowed to carry his previous scale of pay along with him/her, even if he/ she was officiating in it, in accor accordance with Para 19 of AO 12/2020/MP-4."
12/2020/MP
(c) "In accordance with the revised principles of seniority, no benefit of past service is given to the surplus staff adjusted in other Corps/ Service/ Units for purpose of fixation of seniority in the grade in which they are adjusted. Their seniority on their adjustment in new appointments will be determined in accordance with their date of joining the new unit on their adjustment. It has now been decided that when two or more surplus persons of an office are rendered rendered surplus on different dates for absorption in the same receiving unit, their inter seniority as it existed in the office in which they worked before being rendered surplus should be maintained in the grade in which they are absorbed in the new organisation provided that no direct recruit has been selected for organisation appointment to that grade in between these dates, as per CPRO 73/73 as amended by CPRO 11/75".
9. The applicant has been re-employed re employed in the same organization.
The rule position is quite clear and explicitly speaks of the pay Page 6 of 7 Item No.70 (Court -5) O.A. No.708/2023 protection that ought to have been followed. The respondents have misconstrued and misapplied Rule 5(ii) by giving pay protection of scale, not just the last drawn pay.
10. In view of the above, the the impugned orders dated 28.10.2022 and 17.10.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of pay protection to the applicant at the time of his redeployment in terms of Rule 5(ii) of the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990, even though the applicant is working in a lower post and is being declared surplus. Consequential relief, including the arrears, shall also be granted accordingly. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of two two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. The present Original Application is disposed of accordingly. Pending Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/
Page 7 of 7