Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Sharda Bux Singh vs Defence on 17 March, 2026
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00031 of 2023 Sharda Bux Singh & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00031 of 2023
Order reserved on: 25.02.2026
Order pronounced on: 17.03.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
1. MES T-82 Sharda Bux Singh, aged about 57 years, son of late Shri
Jagdish Singh, resident of house no. 595/05, Aurangabad Khalsa,
Post Office Bijnaur, Lucknow
2. MES T-88 Ram Pal Singh, aged about 55 years, son of Shri Maiku
Lal, resident of house no. 423, Sector 6-C, Vrindawan Colony,
Awas Vikas, Lucknow.
3. MES T-108 Uttam Kumar Vishwakarma, aged about 59 years, son
of late Shri Fakire Lal, resident of house no. 239, Shashtri Nagar,
Sitapur, U.P. 261001.
4. MES T-115 Surendra Singh Rana, aged about 44 years, son of
Mahendra Singh Rana, resident of house no. 396, Sector 20-A.
Vrindawan Colony, Awas Vikas, Lucknow-226029.
5. MES T-118 Md. Imroj Ansari, aged about 25 years, son of Kuyam
Ansari, resident of house no. 592 (cha)/132/40, Launga Kheda,
Kharika, Telibagh.
.....Applicants
By Advocate: Shri A S Rathour
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
2. Additional Director General, Manpower (Policy and Planning) MP-
4(Civ) (b), Adjutant General's Branch, IHQ, Mod (Army), Wing-II,
West Block-III R. K. Puram, New Delhi 110066 through its
authorised signatory.
3. Head Quarter, Commander Works Engineer, Military Engineer
Service, Lucknow.
4. Garrison Engineer E/M, Military Engineer Service, Lucknow.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER
Page 1 of 9 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00031 of 2023 Sharda Bux Singh & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors. Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to pay fixation, the applicants have sought following reliefs:
"(A) Declare that the impugned orders i.e. PTO No. 27/2022 dated 04.07.2022 (Annexure A-1) as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and quash and set aside the same.
(B) Pass an order or direction to the respondent no. 4 to restore the basic pay of applicants as per their previous pay scale and consequently grant the annual increment on their previous pay scale (as it was before pay fixation) along with arrears.
(C) To grant any other relief as considered just and proper by the Hon‟ble Tribunal in the present circumstances.
(D) To grant the cost of application in favour of the applicants."
2. The facts of the case are that the applicants, who were working in the Station Workshop EME Lucknow under respondent no. 4, were declared surplus upon disbandment of that Workshop and they were adjusted against various posts vide order dated 27.10.2021. After they joined their respective posts, their pay scale was reduced vide order dated 04.07.2022. They represented against the reduction of pay. Not having elicited a positive response, they have preferred this OA.
3. The applicants contend that in terms of paragraph 6 of the order dated 27.10.2021, they were entitled to carry their pay scales to the posts carrying lower scale of pay against which they had been adjusted due to non-availability of matching scale of pay, but the respondent no. 4 arbitrarily and illegally reduced their pay scale vide the impugned order dated 04.07.2022.
4. On the other hand, the respondents state that the applicants, having become surplus in their parental unit, were posted to GE E/M Lucknow as Mate (SSK) and their pay has been regulated in terms of the office memorandum (OM, hereafter) dated 31.03.2017 issued by the Department of personnel & Training (DoPT, hereafter) by affording them the benefit of pay protection with no recovery and after obtaining Page 2 of 9 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00031 of 2023 Sharda Bux Singh & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors. certificate of willingness from them individually in terms of paragraph 8 of the order dated 27.10.2021.
5. We have heard both the parties. Learned counsel for the applicants emphasized that the action of the respondents was in violation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. He also cited the judgment and order dated 03.07.2025 rendered by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 708 of 2023 (Dhirendra Tilak vs Union of India & Ors) referring to rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents emphasized the certificate of willingness given by the applicants.
6.1 It appears to us that the controversy has emanated from the order dated 27.10.2021, relevant paragraphs of which are extracted below:
"4. Surplus employees will be adjusted against Direct Recruitment posts carrying equivalent/lower pay level. This will be ensured by the Despatching Units in consultation with Receiving Units before the employee is despatched. The individuals must be relieved of their duties immediately on receipt of confirmation regarding availability of vacancy and the pay level of the post. The Receiving Units must TOS the individual immediately on their arrival.
5. The employees who are offered equivalent/lower appointments under these orders due to lack of vacancy in their own grade/trade will be informed in writing the pay level of the new appointment before they are issued with movement orders.
6. An individual adjusted in lower scale of pay due to 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. Affected employees be informed of this in writing.
7...
8. Instructions for Despatching Units/Ests
(a) The adjustment orders will be carried out forthwith under intimation to this HQ and all concerned. Officer-in-charge of the unit/establishment concerned will invariably obtain Certificate of Willingness from the individuals concerned to accept the appointments offered to them before issuing movement orders. At the time of submitting their certificates, the individuals concerned should be informed about full particulars of the posts against which they are proposed to be adjusted in Page 3 of 9 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00031 of 2023 Sharda Bux Singh & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors.
the "Remarks column (Posted as) under Para 2 above. Individuals unwilling to accept appointments offered or unwilling to move out of station will not be considered for any further appointment and will be discharged on the expiry of their leave or notice period. A Certificate of Willingness will be obtained in writing from them by the officer-in-charge of the unit/establishment concerned within 24 hours of the receipt of the posting order so that the resultant vacancies could be utilized for absorption of other surplus individuals. No individuals will be posted in lieu without specific approval of this headquarters..."
(emphasis supplied) It is evident from the order dated 27.10.2021 quoted above that the surplus employees will be adjusted against direct recruitment posts carrying equivalent or lower pay level, and they have to be informed of such equivalent or lower pay level prior to their movement and a certificate of willingness obtained from them, and, further, an individual adjusted in lower pay level due to non-availability of matching scale of pay will be allowed to carry his previous scale of pay which also is required to be informed to them in writing. It is notable that in the order dated 27.10.2021 quoted above, there is no reference to the DoPT's OM dated 31.03.2017 cited by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It is further noted that the stipulation of carrying previous scale of pay in paragraph 6 of the order dated 27.10.2021 refers to paragraph 19 of Army Order (AO) 12/2020 MP-4.
6.2 A perusal of AO 12/2020 MP-4 shows that it is titled „Adjustment of Surpluses, Inter-Organizational Transfer on Compassionate Ground/Mutual basis within MoD and Issue of NAC for filling up Deficiencies - Group „C‟ and Erstwhile Group „D‟ Regular Civilian Employees Under the Ministry of Defence‟. Paragraphs 17 to 19 of this order are reproduced below:
"Refusal to Accept Equivalent/ Lower Appointments
17. If a surplus employee is offered alternative placement but refuses to join such post or wilfully fails to join the said post within the period specified by the appointing authority of the new post, without showing adequate cause for such failure and timely applying for extension of time for joining, action for his further redeployment may be closed and his services terminated after serving upon him a „notice of termination‟ by his last Cadre Controlling Authority under the appropriate rules as may be applicable to him Viz. Rule 39(1) of the Central Civil services (Pension) Rules, 1972 etc. Page 4 of 9 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00031 of 2023 Sharda Bux Singh & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors.
18. The employees who are offered equivalent/lower appointments under these orders due to lack of vacancies in their own grade/trade will be informed in writing the pay scale of the new appointments before they are issued with movement orders. They will also be advised to apply to Army HQ/AG MP 4 (Civ) (b) through proper channel for reclassification to their original posts on the form as at Appendix „D‟ within one month of joining duty in their new posts. Only those individuals are eligible for reclassification who have rendered at least six months continuous service in a higher grade. He will be restored on his original seniority only on reclassification in his original parent cadre/service within one year. If no reclassification orders are issued within one year of the date of issue of adjustment orders for want of a vacancy in his previous cadre/unit/est, the adjustment orders would be final and the reclassification application shall be deemed to have been disposed of.
19. An individual posted in lower scale of pay due to non availability of matching scale of pay, will be allowed to carry his previous scale of pay along with him, even if he is officiating in it."
(emphasis supplied) It follows from the above order, which governs the adjustment of surplus manpower, that when it is not possible to accommodate the surplus employee in his own grade or unit, he will be offered equivalent or lower appointment and the pay scale of new post will be informed to him before issuing movement order; further, the employee posted in lower pay scale will be allowed to carry his previous scale of pay along with him. It is noted that no condition is attached to carrying the previous pay scale other than appointment to lower post on account of non-availability of matching scale of pay. Again, it is noted that AO 12/2020 MP-4 does not make any reference to the DoPT's OM dated 31.03.2017 cited by the respondents in their counter affidavit. 6.3 Coming to DoPT's OM dated 31.03.2017 cited by the respondents, it is observed that it is titled „Fixation of pay of employees who seek transfer to a lower post under FR 15(a) - clarification regarding‟. As is evident from the title itself, this OM deals with transfer of employee at his own request; there is no mention of an employee declared surplus either in the title or in the body of this OM.
Page 5 of 9 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00031 of 2023 Sharda Bux Singh & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors. 6.4 As a reference is made to FR 15(a) in the DoPT's OM dated 31.03.2017, FR 15 (a) is extracted below is for the sake of clarity:
"F.R. 15. (a) The President may transfer Government servant from one post to another provided that except- -.
(1) on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour, or (2) on his written request, a Government servant shall not be transferred to, or except in a case covered by Rule 49, appointed to officiate in a post carrying less pay than the pay of the post on which he holds a lien."
(emphasis supplied) It is seen that FR 15(a) permits transfer of a government servants to a post carrying lesser pay on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour or on his own request; there is no other exception other than cases covered by Rule 49 which, on perusal, relate to a combination of appointments, which is not the case here.
6.5 Further, a web search reveals that the DoPT has notified the Central Civil Services (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 on 28.02.1990. Rule 5 of these Rules has a bearing on the controversy at hand and is reproduced below:
"5. Determination of placement:
(1) (i) As far as possible, a surplus employee shall, subject to his suitability, be redeployed in a post carrying a pay scale matching his current pay scale.
(ii) For the purpose of clause (i), a matching pay scale shall mean a pay scale the maximum of which is equal to that of the pay scale of the surplus employee, and the minimum of which is not higher than the basic pay (including the stagnation pay) which the surplus employee is in receipt of at the time of making his nomination.
(2) Where a suitable vacancy in a post carrying matching scale of pay is not available, the surplus employee may be redeployed in a post carrying a non-matching pay scale:
Provided that,-
(i) the maximum of the pay scale of such post does not exceed the maximum of the pay scale of the surplus employee by more than 10 per cent; and
(ii) such post is not lower than the post which forms, or would ordinarily form, the next lower rung in the promotional ladder for the incumbents of the post of the level currently held by the surplus employee:
Provided, further, that,-Page 6 of 9
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00031 of 2023 Sharda Bux Singh & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors.
(i) a surplus employee who is sponsored or nominated against a post carrying a pay scale with a higher maximum, in terms of clause (i) of the first proviso above should either have the qualifications, as prescribed for appointment to the post by direct recruitment or by transfer, or should have been successfully performing in his parent department the duties attached to such post; and
(ii) when redeployed in a post carrying a lower 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 carrying a lower pay scale at his own request.
(3) Where a surplus employee is drawing pay in a pay scale different from those prescribed under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986, the administrative Ministry shall while reporting the particulars of such employee to the concerned Cell for arranging his redeployment, or as soon as may be thereafter, also communicate to the Cell, the pay scale under the aforesaid rules, corresponding to his pay scale, as may be determined in consultation with the Ministry of Finance having regard to the duties and responsibilities attached, and qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post held by him. For the purpose of his placement under this rule and under Rule 6, the employee will be deemed as borne on such corresponding pay scale of the said Revised Pay Rules, as determined under this rule."
(emphasis supplied) It is noted that the above quoted Rules of 1990 stipulate that as far as possible a surplus employee shall be redeployed to a post carrying a pay scale matching his current pay scale; further, if a suitable post carrying matching pay scale is not available, such surplus employee shall be permitted to carry his current pay scale with him, except when the redeployment is made at his own request.
7.1 Our examination of the order dated 27.10.2021, the instructions contained in AO 12/2020 MP-4, DoPT's OM dated 31.03.2017, FR 15(a) and the Central Civil Services (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules 1990 above brings out that the surplus employee is required to be adjusted (or redeployed) in a post carrying pay scale matching with the pay scale enjoyed by the surplus employee and, in the event the new post where he is adjusted (or redeployed) does not have matching pay scale, it is required that the employee be permitted to carry the pay scale enjoyed by him hitherto to that new post. An exception to this Page 7 of 9 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00031 of 2023 Sharda Bux Singh & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors. arrangement occurs when the employee is transferred at his own written request as provided under DoPT's OM dated 31.03.2017, FR 15(a) and rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990.
7.2 In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the applicants were declared as surplus by the respondents and that the applicants' adjustment was carried out by the respondents themselves vide order dated 27.10.2021 in terms of the instructions contained in AO 12/2020 MP-4. It is noted that the applicants did not, on their own, initiate any written request for, or sought, their adjustment or redeployment or transfer. In view of this position, it is observed that the certificate of willingness obtained from the applicants by the respondents cannot be construed as if the applicants were adjusted at their own request or seeking. Consequently, we hold that the provisions contained in DoPT's OM dated 31.03.2017, which have been relied upon by the respondents, are not applicable to the applicants' case. 7.3 The net result is that the impugned order dated 04.07.2022, based on DoPT's OM dated 31.03.2017 and the undertaking obtained from the applicants, has no legs to stand on following the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus (when the foundation is removed, the super-structure falls).
7.4 Our conclusion is supported by the following order of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Dhirendra Tilak (supra):
"10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 and 17.10.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accord the benefits of pay protection to the applicant at the time of his redeployment in terms of Rule 5(ii) of the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990, even though the applicant is working in a lower post and is being declared surplus..."
(emphasis supplied) Page 8 of 9 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00031 of 2023 Sharda Bux Singh & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors. 8.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is allowed and the order dated 04.07.2022 is quashed and set aside.
8.2 The respondents are directed to allow the applicants to carry their previous scale of pay pursuant to order dated 27.10.2021 and to restore the pay of the applicants in their previous pay scale from the date due with consequential benefits and pay them arrears within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8.3 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
8.4 Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
Vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela Date: 2026.03.17
13:28:16 +05'30'
Page 9 of 9