Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Mohanlal B Makwana vs Central Board Of Excise & Custom on 23 March, 2026
:: 1 :: O.A.No.107/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
O.A. No.107 of 2017
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2026
Reserved On: 25.02.2026
Pronounced On: 23.03.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble
ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Shri Mohanlal,
Son of Shri Bhanabhai Makwana,
Age: 65 years,
Ex. A.O. of the respondents,
Residing at 757, Vankarvas,
Opp. Kumar School,
Nava Vadaj, Ahmedabad - 380 013. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri M.S.Trivedi)
Versus
1. The Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
C.B.E.C, North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Commissioner,
O/o. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs,
Race Course Road,
Vadodara-395 623.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
O/o. Assistant Commissioner,
3rd Floor, APM Mall,
Anand Nagar, Prahaladnagar Road,
Nr. Sima Hall, Satellite,
Ahmedabad - 380 015.
4. The Pay & Accounts Officer,
PAO, Nav Gujarat College Building,
Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad - 380 009. ......Respondents
(By Advocate:Ms.R.R.Patel)
Advocate:
2026.03.23
SEEMA
16:59:25+
SANTHOSH
05'30'
:: 2 :: O.A.No.107/2017
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Dr.Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
1. Being aggrieved by the order No.11/24/1/2015/ Actt/10 Actt/10147 dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure (Annexure-A/1) A/1) whereby his request for additional increment and thereof arrears were declined, the applicant has h s filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following relief:
relief:-
"(A) That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow this petition.
B) That the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to hold/declare that the impugned decision of the respondents conveyed vide communication No. 11/24/1/2015/Actt/10147 dat dated 18.1.2017 issued by the respondents rejecting the claim of the applicant for arrears on his promotion to the higher post of A.O., is null and void and nullity in the eyes of law.
(C) That, the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to quash and set aside thehe impugned decision of the respondents conveyed vide communication No. 11/24/1/2015/Actt/10147 dated 18.1.2017 issued by the respondents rejecting the claim of the applicant for arrears on his promotion to the higher post of A.O., and further be pleased tto direct the respondents to give/grant the claim of Rs. 89589/ 89589/-
with 9% interest and with exemplary costs, by way of allowing the present petition. (D) Such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted."
2. Brief facts of the case of the applicant are as follows:
follows:-
2.1 The applicant while working as a Superintendent in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue promoted as Administrative Officer in the scale of Rs.6500 Rs.6500-200-10500/- vide Establishment order No.226/2002 dated 31.07.2002 issued by the respondents. It was also stated in the aforementioned order that the applicant was on probation for two years. The applicant further contended that the Commissioner of Central 2026.03.23 SEEMA 16:59:25+ SANTHOSH 05'30' :: 3 :: O.A.No.107/2017 Excise cise and Customs, Vadodara had sought clarification from om the Ministry of Finance vide Fax dated 23.11.2000 whether appointment to the grade of AO AO/ACAO/EOA from Office ffice superintendent did involve such assumption of duties and responsibilities nsibilities of greater importance.
importance. Pending receipt of clarification, the pay of the OS placed in the grade of AO be fixed in terms of provision contained in FR 22(1)(a)(2). Accordingly, the pay of the applicant was fixed in the grade of AO by the respondents. Subsequently, the ap applicant plicant submitted a request dated 07.03.2013 to o the respondent and had requested to fix his pay as per the prescribed R Rule 13 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 in terms of the Ministry of Finance Finance,, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi.
2.2 The applicant was expecting that the applicant's pay would be fixed accordingly and will give him due arrears on the pay fixation. However, the applicant was informed by the respondent vide their OM No.11/24/1/2015/Actt/10 No.11/24/1/2015/Actt/10147 47 dated 18.01.2017 issued by the respondent respondents whereby rejecting the claim of the applicant for arrears arrear on promotion to the higher post of AO and therefore rejected the claim of applicant which were due to him. Therefore, being aggrieved by the aforementioned letter dated 18.01 18.01.2017 .2017 issued by the respondent ondent rejecting re the claim of the applicant for arrear of his promotion to the higher post of AO and therefore rejected the claim of which were due to t him
3. The counsel for the applicant further contended on the ground as stated hereunder:-
hereunder:
3.1 The impugned order dated 18.01.2017 is ex ex-facie, facie, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. He also referred that the aforesaid communication based on the decision taken by the PAO Office is limited to accounts matter, the PAO could not decide the administrative administrative matter on applicability of FR 2026.03.23 SEEMA 16:59:25+ SANTHOSH 05'30' :: 4 :: O.A.No.107/2017 22(I)(a)(I). The applicant further contended that the pay scale of the OA and AO were merged in one Scale of Rs.6500 Rs.6500--
10500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 did not exclude the element of promotion i.e., assumption of duties and greater importance of higher responsibilities. Therefore on the basis of above, the applicant requested that OA may be allowed
4. Per contra the respondents filed reply wherein they have denied the averments mentioned by the applicant in the OA and further submitted submitted that the applicant had challenged the order deciding the pay fixation of the applicant herein and promotion from the post of the office superintendent to the Administrative Officer. However, he had challenged the same and same is misconceived, baseless baseless and not tenable in the eye of law. He further referred that in the IV CPC sscale of OS was Rs.2000-- 3200 whereas the pay scale of AO was Rs.2000 Rs.2000-3500.
3500. In the V CPC both the scales were merged to one pay scale of Rs.6500 Rs.6500--
10500/ Therefore there is no provision 10500/-. rovision qua pay fixat fixation ion under FR22(1)(a)(1) 22(1)(a)(1) and since the pay sscale ale of both the posts were same,, the same was clarified vide CBEC (AD IIA) letter.No.A letter.No.A--
26014/7/2001.ADII.A dated 24.03.2006. Further, CBEC OM vide F.No.10/C2/20-E.111 F.No.10/C2/20 A dated 07.01.2013 is not applicable in the present case as it is effective from 01.01.2006 in VI CPC in the pattern of Pay Band B nd and Grade Pay, whereas applicant was promoted in the year 2002 i.e. much prior to OM dated 07.01.2013.
4.1 Respondents further clarified that as per CCO Vadodara-- I, EO No.352/2002 dated 20.11.2002, the placement of the applicant along with other incumbents to the gr grade de of AO who were working against the post of OS was only a re re-designation designation of the post. Therefore no fixation benefit under FR 22(I)(a)( 22(I)(a)(I) I) was admissible/granted. Moreover, respondents have already exercised the pay fixation and carried out calculation as to the 2026.03.23 SEEMA 16:59:25+ SANTHOSH 05'30' :: 5 :: O.A.No.107/2017 arrears and consequently bill was sent to the PAO vide its Bill Return Memo sent back the said bill enclosing therewith a letter No.A--26014/7/2001-AD-IIA IIA dated 24.
24.07.2006 stating that the arrears is not admissible to the applicant (Annexure (Annexure-R/2).
4.2 He also referred para of the aforesaid letter dated 24.07.2006, which is reproduced hereunder:
hereunder:-
"I am directed to say that the questi question of extending benefit of pay fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(1) to officers holding the post of erstwhile cadre of Office Superintendent (Non Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 10500 on promotion to the post of Administrative Officers (Gazetted) in the payy scale of Rs. 6500 6500-10500 between 01.01.1996 to 04.06.2002 has been under consideration of the Ministry in consultation with the Department of Expenditure.
2. It has been considered and decided that since the pay scale of Office Superintendent and Accounts Officers were merged into one pay scale of RS. 6500-10500 10500 by the Fifth Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1996 hence benefit of pay fixation under FR 22(I)(a)(1) cannot be granted".
Therefore on the basis of aforesaid provision, the applicant could not be e given the benefit of FR 22 (I)(a)( (I)(a)(I).
4.3 It was also mentioned that the respondent had misconceived to submit that clarification which would involve consequences therefore it was not made applicable with retrospective effect. He further referred the provision of FR 22 (1) (a)(2)
(a) wherein it is stated that due to merger of both the posts viz., Office Superinten Superintendent and Administrative Officer, Officer, the promotion to the post of administrative Officer could not be treated as promotion as the post had merged with post of AO and did not carry the major or duty and responsibility and tha than the post of OS.
4.4 Moreover, the clarification of the Ministry of Finance letter No.24.07.2016, the basic issue had been already 2026.03.23 SEEMA 16:59:25+ SANTHOSH 05'30' :: 6 :: O.A.No.107/2017 considered and justified to the fact that the pay fixation was considered under FR 22(I) (a)(2
(a)(2) with reference to the employees who had been taken on roll from the post of AO from the post of OS. Therefore, respondents submitted that this OA lacks merit and same may be rejected.
5. Heard both the learned counsel at length and perused the materials material and guidelines on record.
6. It is an admitted fact that the applicant while working as a Superintendent in the Scale cale of Pay of 6500 6500-2000-
10500 was promoted as an Administrative Offic
Officer vide
establishment order No.31.07.2002 iss
issued by the
respondents herein. Subsequently,, on the recommendation of the V CPC, both the Scales of Office Superintendent and Administrative Administrativ Officer were merged into one Pay Scale of Rs.6500-10500/-.
Rs. . This issue had been also clarified by
the order of CBEC
C vide the Ministry dat
dated dated
24.03.2006. Relevant para is reproduced herein below:
below:-
"It has been considered and decided that since the pay scale of Office Superintendent and Accounts Officer were merged into one pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/ 10500/- by the Fifth Central Pay Commission hence the benefit of pay fixation under FR 22(I)(a)(I) cannot be granted."
7. Further, it had been clarified by the he Ministry of Finance that the roles and responsibilities of Office Superintendent and the Administrative Officer are same therefore,, the Office Superintendent may be designated as Administrative Officer w.e.f. 05.07.20 2 with reference to the letter F.No.A--
05.07.2002 32012/3/2002 Ad.II(B)(Pt) dated 08.10.2002 32012/3/2002-Ad.II(B)(Pt) issued sued by the Ministry of Finance.
8. The core issue to be decided herein is whether the applicant and similarly situated officer officers when promoted from the 2026.03.23 SEEMA 16:59:25+ SANTHOSH 05'30' :: 7 :: O.A.No.107/2017 Office Superintendent to the Administrative Officer in the year 2002, whether they were eligible for pay fixation and the benefits as laid down under FR22(I)(a)(I).
9. It is appropriate to discuss the above provis provision ion as laid down under FR22(I)(a)(I).
FR22(I)(a)(I). It is important to note that as per tthe e laid down provision provision in the FR22(I)(a FR22(I)(a)) (I) the benefit of one increment and accordingly fixation of p increment pay ay as applicable only when there is an element of promotion and the persons are required to assign the higher post and higher responsibility. In order to sink the intend of the Ministry of Finance while promoting the Office Superintenden Superintendentt to the Administrative Officer. It is apt to quote the relevant para of the clarification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue.
10. It is evident from the aforementioned clarification, especially the letter dated dat d 24.07.2006 that the scale of the Office Superintendent and Administrative Officer were merged in one scale of Rs.6500-10500 Rs.6500 10500 after implementation of recommendation of V CPC. Consequently, the scale of both the posts i.e, Office Superintendent and Administrative Officer were also merged in one scale during the VI CPC and VII CPC and there were were no higher responsibility and roles as evident from the clarification issued by the Ministry of Finance vide their letter dated 08.10.2002 08.10.2002 wherein it was stated that the post of Office Superintendent may be re-designated re designated as Administrative Officer w.e.f. 07.05.2002. Moreover, in the present case, proper provisions of the relevant rules are in FR 22(I)(a)(2)) which is reproduced herein below:--
"(2) When the appointment to the new post does not involve such assumption of duties and responsibilities of greaterr importance, he shall draw as initial pay, the stage of the time time-scale which is equal to his pay in respect of the old post held by him on regular basis, or, if there is no such stage, the stage next above his pay in respect of the old post held by him on regular basis:
2026.03.23 SEEMA 16:59:25+ SANTHOSH 05'30' :: 8 :: O.A.No.107/2017 Provided that where the minimum pay of the time time-
scale of the new post is higher than his pay in respect of the post held by him regularly, he shall draw the minimum as the initial pay"
Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid clarification by the Ministry of Finance issued from time to time, and the provisions laid down under FR 22(I)(A)(2),, we do not find any infirmities or illegal illegalities in the clarification ation issued vide order dated 24.07..2006.. Therefore this OA lacks merit and same is accordingly, dismissed. Pending MA MA, if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to Costs.
(Dr.
Dr. Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
SKV
2026.03.23
SEEMA
16:59:25+
SANTHOSH
05'30'