Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Prabhakar Mittal vs M/O Finance on 17 April, 2025
1
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 1689/2020,
O.A. No. 1028/2019,
O.A. No. 1453/2019,
O.A. No. 2679/2019,
O.A. No. 2275/2019
and
O.A. No. 222/2020
Reserved on:- 03.04.2025
Pronounced on:- _______________
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
O.A. No. 1689/2020
1. Prabhakar Mittal,
Aged- 54 Years,
S/o Sh. D.N. Mittal
Working as Director,
MES E-in-Chief Branch,
New Delhi-28,
R/o P-163/1A MES Officers Enclave,
Kabul Lines, Gate no. 3, Delhi Cantt-110010
2. Sanjeeva Bajpai,
Aged- 54 Years,
S/o Late Sh. A.P.Bajpai,
Working as Director in MES,
Patiala (Punjab)
R/o 48, Old Cantt Patiala-147001
...Applicants
(Through Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
Govt, of India, New Delhi
2
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Govt, of India,
South Block, New Delhi.
3. Engineer-in-Chief,
Military Engineer Services,
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi
4. The Officer-in-Incharge,
Central Record Office(Officers)
c/o 56 APO
...Respondents
(Through Advocate: Mr. Hilal Haider)
O.A. No. 1028/2019
1. Neeraj Mehrotra, Aged- 51 Years,
S/o Shri Anand Narain Mehrotra
Working as Superintendent Engineer in MES,
Presently on deputation as Director,
In the Department of Telecommunication,
R/o 33/804 Commonwealth Games Village,
Delhi - 110092
2. Perveen Kumar, Aged- 55 Years,
S/o Shri Raghunath Sahaya Jain
Working as CWE in CWE Kota,
R/o 49, Gen Vij Enclave, GTC area,
Kota Military Station, Kota Rajasthan.
3. S K Sharma (89 Batch), Aged- 52 Years,
S/o Shri C P Sharma
Working as Project Manager in DG MAP
R/o C 592 Saraswati Vihar, Pitampura,
Delhi 110034
4. Vimal Kumar Tiwari, Aged- 51 Years,
S/o Late Shyam Bihari Tiwari
Working as Director in HQ CE AF Bangalore
(Presently pursuing higher studies at IIM Bangalore)
R/o 3/197 Viram Khand Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow
3
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
5. Umesh Kumar, Aged- 49 Years,
S/o Late Sh. Sita Ram Singh,
Working as Director in HQ CE Bhopal Zone,
R/o BP 61, Lake Pearl Garden,
Airport Road Bhopal, Bhopal-462001
6. Piyush Jain, Aged- 48 Years,
S/o Shri Jai Kumar Jain
Working as Superintendent Engineer in MES,
Presently on Deputation as Director
In Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
R/o 14 Meena Bagh Flats
Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi-110011
7. Nalin Singhal, Aged- 52 Years,
S/o T P Raizada
Working as Director in CE AF Bangalore
R/o P 1007/4, CE AF Bangalore Complex,
Yeshwantpur, Bangaluru-560022
8. Dayanand Arya, Aged- 50 Years,
S/o Ram Kishan Arya
Working as Superintending Engineer in MES,
Presently on deputation as Superintending
Engineer, In ESIC Office, 4th Floor, Express
Building, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, N. D.-110002
R/o 28/103 East End Apartment, Mayur Vihar
Phase-1 Extension, New Delhi-110096
9. K Srinivasa Rao, Aged- 53 Years,
S/o Late Sh. K Rama Rao
Working as CE(NFG) in CWE Mhow
R/o SM-39, Gulmohar House, Mhow
Cantonment, MP-453441
10. Rajesh Kesarwani, Aged- 53 Years,
S/o Sh. Kedarnath Kesarwani
Working as CWE in CWE Works 2 DGNP
Visakhapatnam,
R/o E-68/3. Dolphin Hill, Visakhapatnam,
AP-530014.
11. Kameshwar Das, Aged- 54 Years,
S/o Late Uma Shankar Das
Working as CWE in CWE Army Banglore,
R/o 165/4, Type-V Accn, CE Shillong Zone,
SE Falls, Shillong-793011
4
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
12. Girraj Goyal, Aged- 56 Years,
S/o Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Goyal
Working as Superintendent Engineer in MES,
Present on deputation as Director in
Ministry of Water Resources
R/o B 31 Nivedita Kunj RK Puram New Delhi
13. Vinay Kumar Agrahari, Aged- 54 Years,
S/o Sri Banarasi Prasad Agrahari
Working as DIR(Plg&Wks) in DGNP Mumbai
R/o 6A, Vishwakarma Building, NOFRA,
Near R C Church, Colaba, Mumbai- 400005
14. Vinod Kumar, Aged- 50 Years,
S/o Shri Suraj Mal
Working as SE in CWE Bhopal
R/o 6/80, Barahi Road, Bahadurgarh, Haryana-124507
15. Kapil Kumar Gupta, Aged- 52 Years,
S/o Shriram Gupta
Working as CWE in CWE Nagpur
R/o P-29, Officer's Enclave Nehru Marg,
Nagpur-440001
16. Manoj Bapna, Aged- 54 Years,
S/o Late Sh Keshri Mal Bapna
Working as CEW in HQ CWE (AF) NAGPUR
R/o Qtr No.126/3, ME Officers Qtrs, Vayusena Nagar,
Nagpur-440007
17. Karra raja Sekhar, Aged- 52 Years,
S/o Sh. K Tata Rao
Working as CWE in CWE Dehradun
R/o Qtr No. 31/1, Mall Road, Dehradun- 248003
18. Srinivas Nalla, Aged- 54 Years,
S/o Sh. Appala Naidu Nalla
Working as CWE in CWE (AF) Maharajpur
R/o OMQ No. 40, Air Force Station Gwalior,
Gwalior 474020
19. Manish Khatri, Aged-54 Years,
S/o SRI J P KHATRI
Working as CWE in CWE NO 2 MEERUT
R/o P297/1, NIRMITI VIHAR, MALL ROAD,
MEERUT CANTT(U P)
5
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
20. SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, Aged- 52 Years,
S/o Radha Raman Sharma
Working as CWE in CWE (Air Force ) Chandigarh
R/o P-287/1A, HQ 'N' Area, Chandigarh -160003
21. Sanjeev Kumar Nigam, Aged- 53 Years,
S/o Shri Ram Prasad Nigam
Working as CWE in CWE Panagarh
R/o 10, Y-1, Yashoda Nagar, Kanpur-208011
22. V P Shrivastava, Aged- 52 Years,
S/o Shiv Dyal shrivastava,
Working as CWE in CWE Binnaguri
R/o MAP Ph-2 O-92/327 Central Zone
Mil station, Binnaguri
Dist Jalpaiguri-735232 West Bengal
23. Paresh Kumar Goel, Aged- 52 Years,
S/o Ram Kumar Goel
Working as Superintendent Engineer in MES,
Presently on deputation as Director
In Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
R/o E-32, Nivedita Kunj, R K PURAM, Sector 10,
New Delhi, 110022
24. Sameer Pandey, Aged- 50 Years,
S/o Sri R N Pandey
In Hq CE Western Command, Chandimandir,
R/o Flat No 3235, Rose Petal Society,
Sector 49 D, Chandigarh
25. Ashutosh Mishra, Aged- 54 Years,
S/o Kamta Prasad Mishra
Working as CWE in CWE Bareilly
R/o House No. 1/2, DCA MES Officers' Enclave,
DCA Colony Bareilly Cantt
26. A K PATHAK, Aged- 56 Years,
S/o Sh. K N PATHAK
Working as Project Manager in PM OL DINJAN, ASSAM
R/o 1/76 RASHMI KHAND SHARDA NAGAR
LUCKNOW
27. Rajeev Kumar Garg, Aged- 49 Years,
S/o Mahesh Chand Garg
Working as Director in CE BAREILLY ZONE
R/o 9/3 DCA COLONY ,Bareilly Cantt -243002
6
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
28. Sanjay Prakash Dwivedi, Aged- 51 Years,
S/o K D Dwivedi(Late)
Working as Director Pers M in Hq MES , Kashmir House,
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi 110011
R/o 158/2B, MES Heights, Kabul Lines, Kotwali Road,
Delhi Cantt 110010
29. RADHA MOHAN ROUT, Aged- 54 Years,
S/o Late Bansidhar Rout
Working as DIRECTOR in HQ CESC PUNE
R/o House No. 12D, Nirman Viharm Near Sub Area
Canteen, PUNE CAMP, PUNE 411001, Maharashtra
30. Rajneesh Chandra, Aged- 53 Years,
S/o Late Rajendra Bahadur,
Working as Commander Works Engineer
In CWE (AF) Jamnagar
R/o 205/2 Air force Station Jamnagar
31. Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, Aged- 52 Years,
S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Tripathi
Working as SE in CWE Chandimandir
R/o 149 Sector A, Chandimandir, Mil Stn Panchkula
Haryana 134107
32. Pankaj Tyagi, Aged- 52 Years,
S/o Late Shri Satya Vir Tyagi
Working as CWE in CWE AF Palam
R/o P -261/3, Type -5 MES Qtr, Rock-View Officers
Enclave, Airforce Station Palam, Delhi Cantt 110010
33. Anil Kumar Garg, Aged- 56 Years,
S/o Sh. Munna Lal Garg
Working as Project Manager MAP Kamptee (Nagpur)
R/o 126/2, MES Officer's Enclave,
VayuSena Nagar, Nagpur - 440007
34. MUKESH KUMAR, Aged- 52 Years,
S/o Sh. DILE RAM
Working as Director in HQ, CE(AF)SHILLONG ZONE,
R/o P 579/4, NV2, MES OFFRS, PRATAP LINES,
JAIPUR CANTT-302012
35. Vineet Modi, Aged- 50 Years,
S/o Late Shri Hari Prasad Goel
Working as Director in HQ CE Leh Zone
7
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
R/o 1043/3, Sector-3, Nai Sarak,
Shastri Nagar, Meerut-250005
36. Gopal Krishna Jha, Aged- 53 Years,
S/o Shri Anant Jha
Working as Director in HQ CE Siliguri Zone
R/o E-24, Brahma Apartment, Sector-7, Dwarka, Delhi
110075.
37. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Aged- 50 Years,
S/o Shri Shiv Murti Pandey
Working as CWE in CWE AF Secunderabad
R/o P-42 , MES IB (Air Force),near Tivoli Cinema
Secunderabad
38. Varinder Pal, Aged- 50 Years,
S/o Sh. Laxmi Narain
Working as Director in HQ CCE Army No 3 Narangi
R/o HQ CCE ARMY NO 3 NARANGI
GUWAHATI 781027
39. Yashvant Kumar Gour, Aged- 51 Years,
S/o Sh. S N Gour
Working as Director in CE 31 Zone ,Srinagar
R/o C/O CE 31 Zone , Sonawar, Srinagar, J&K
40. Sandeep Mittal, Aged- 50 Years,
S/o Sh. S C Mittal
Working as Director(Wks) in HQ
Chief Engineer Western Command
R/o 377 Sector B, Chandimandir Cantt,
Panchkula 134107
41. Pramod Kumar, Aged- 55 Years,
S/o Late Sh Amar Nath,
Working as Superintendent Engineer in MES
Present on deputation as Director in Min of Home Affairs
R/o 703 Vinayak Apartment Plot 36 Sector 10
Dwarka New Delhi 110075
42. Suman Kumar, Aged- 53 Years,
S/o Late Sh Budh Ram
Working as CWE in HQ, CWE Jammu
R/o P-2/3, Satwari CAntt, Jammu
43. Anil Kumar Khandelwal, Aged- 55 Years,
S/o Sh. Radha Krishan Gupta
8
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
Working as CWE in CWE (Air Force) KALAIKUNDA
R/o OMQ-2J/1, AF Stn Kalaikunda, PO- Kalaikunda,
Air Field, PIN-721303 WB
44. Puneet Kumar, Aged- 54 Years,
S/o Late Shri Hari Prakash Gupta
Working as CWE in CWE Mamun
R/o P-79/02, MES Complex,
Dalhousie Road, Opp Defence Colony, Mamun,
Pathankot-145001
45. Suneel Kumar Arora, Aged- 54 Years,
S/o Sh Khairati Lal Arora
Working as Director in HQ Chief Engineer(AF)
WAC Palam , Delhi Cantt. 110010
R/o RV 03 , Rock View Officer's Enclave.
AF Station Palam , Delhi Cantt.- 110010
46. Vijay Kumar, Aged- 53 Years,
S/o Sh. Ratan Singh
Working as CWE in CWE Agra
R/o SP 4/2, Station Road Colony, Agra Cantt
47. Jagdish Parwani, Aged- 54 Years,
S/o Late Shri Bharat Lal
Working as Director in CE 31 Zone c/o 56APO
R/o E 731 Kamla Nagar Agra
48. Neeraj kumar Sharma, Aged- 56 Years,
S/o Late Sh R. D. Sharma
Working as Director, n HQ Chief Engineer Northern
Command, Udhampurn
R/o 60/1. Sapper's Enclave, Opp Chopra Shop,
Udhampur, J& K
49. B SRINIVASA RAO, Aged- 51 Years,
S/o Sh. B VISWANADHAM
Working as CWE in CWE Mhow, MP
R/o TW-26/1, MCTE, Mhow-453441
50. Shradhesh Chandra, Aged- 56 Years,
S/o Sh. Suresh Chandra Verma
Working as Director in HQ CE AF Udhampur Zone
R/o 89 Ravinder Garden,
Aliganj Sector E,
Lucknow-226024
9
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
51. Avanindra Kumar Dubey, Aged- 50 Years,
S/o Late Sh V D Dubey
Working as Director in E-in-C Branch Kashmir House
R/o House No P158/4c ,MES Heights,MES officers
Colony, Kabul lines, Delhi Cantt
52. Prabhas Kumar, Aged- 55 Years,
S/o Late Dr Bam Bam Singh
Working as Superintendent Engineer in MES,
Presently on deputation as Director in Dept of Fertilizers
R/o 2/101 Commonwealth Games Village,
Delhi 110092
53. J. V. R. Prasad, Aged- 54 Years,
S/o JC Ranganayakulu
Working as CWE in CWE (NW) Mumbai
R/o 62, Revathi, NOFRA, Colaba Navy Cantt,
Mumbai-400005
54. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Aged - 49 Years,
S/o Shri Ramashish Singh,
Working as Superintendent Engineer in MES.
Presently on deputation as Director in Department of
Land Resources under Min of Rural Development,
R/o E514, Kasmanda Apartments, 2 Park Road,
Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001
55. Rabindra Kumar Behera, Aged-53 Years,
S/o Late Dhaneswar Behera,
Working as Director in E-in-C Branch, HQ MES,
R/o P-158,/3C,MES Heights, Kabul Lines, Delhi Cantt.
56. Shri Kusim Ranjan, Aged - 49 Years,
S/o Shri Kapil Sri Prasad,
Working as Director in in E-in-C Branch, HQ MES,
R/o 4E, Tower 14, Type V, East KIDWAI Nagar,
N Delhi-110023
57. Ravi Gupta, Aged-50 years,
S/o Sh Babu Ram Gupta,
Working as Superintendent Engineer in MES.
Presently on deputation as Director in Ministry of
Statistics and Programme Implementation,
R/o Block K Flat no 5-3 MS Flats
Sec 13 RK Puram,
New Delhi 110066
10
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
58. Mihir Prasad Shadangi, Aged-49 years,
S/o Sashi Bhusan Shadangi,
Working as Director in CE Jabalpur Zone,
R/o Qtr no 366/1, Vinaya Rao Enclave,
Ridge Road, Jabalpur-482001
...Applicants
(Through Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
Govt, of India, New Delhi
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Govt, of India,
South Block, New Delhi.
3. Engineer-in-Chief,
Military Engineer Services,
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi
...Respondents
(Through Advocate: Mr. R K Sharma)
O.A. No. 1453/2019
1. M.M. Singh, Aged- 45 Years,
S/o Late Sh. Virendra Singh,
Working as Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
Permanent r/o P/602/03, Sarvat Vihar Colony,
Karkhi, Pune-411003.
2. Vinay Pratap Singh, Aged- 52 Years,
S/o Sh. B.D. Singh,
Working as Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o D-403, Park View City 1, Sector-48,
Sohna Road, Gurugram-122018
11
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
3. Vivek Omar, Aged- 45 Years,
S/o Sh. JC Gupta,
Working as Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o P145/1, MES Officers Enclave,
Kabul Line, Delhi Cantt.
4. Vinay Kumar, Aged- 49 Years,
S/o Sh. Ram Bhajan Singh,
Working as SE, Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o DIR (P&L), HQ Chief Engineer,
Pathankot Zone,
5. R. Srinivasa, Aged- 52 Years,
S/o Sh. C Ramadas,
Working as Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o Qtr No.3A, Ombir Colony,
Sikh Village Road, Mud Fort,
Secunderabad, Pin-500009
6. Santosh Kumar Chouhan, Aged- 49 Years,
S/o Shri Pukhraj Chouhan,
Working as Director (P&L) in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o B-2, Nirman Park, Kancharapalem,
Visakhapatnam-530007
7. Devendra Kumar Verma, Aged- 51 Years,
S/o Sh. Hira Lal,
Working as Director (C) in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o HQ Chief Engineer Pathankot Zone,
Pathankot
12
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
8. Rajeev Garg, Aged- 48 Years,
S/o Sh. D D Garg,
Working as Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o Director Plg HQ CE AF Udhampur
9. Devesh Pandey, Aged- 49 Years,
S/o Sh. Shiv Shankar Pandey,
Working as Director (DPC) in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o K-963, Sector-K, Ashiyana,
Lucknow, UP.
10. Rakesh Kumar Soni, Aged- 50 Years,
S/o Late Shri Laxmi Prasad Soni,
Working as SE/Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o HQ CE Bathinda Zone, Bathinda Military Station,
Punjab.
11. Ashok Kumar, Aged- 48 Years,
S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder Lal,
Working as Director E/M in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o 261/1, Rock View, Air Force Station,
Palam, Delhi Cantt.
12. Akhilesh Shukla, Aged- 47 Years,
S/o Sh. B.K. Shukla,
Working as Director (Contraxt) in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o 12C, Nirman Vihar, Kahun Road, Pube Camp,
Pube-411001
13. Kuldeep Rastogi, Aged- 47 Years,
S/o Sh. Anand Kumar Rastogi,
Working as SE, Director in MES,
13
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o HQ CE Leh Zone, Leh.
14. DV Maheswar, Aged- 50Years,
S/o Late D Appa Rao,
Working as SE (QS&C) in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o O/o CCE(P) OTA Gaya, MES,
Near AT Gate, OTA, Gaya-823005
15. Rajesh Kumar, Aged- 49 Years,
S/o Late Harihar Prasad,
Working as SE in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o Office of CCE(P) OTA,
Military Engineer Services
Near AT Gate, OTA, Gaya-823005
16. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged- 48 Years,
S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma,
Working as Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o P 490/A, College of Military Engineering,
Dapodi, Pune Maharashtra, Pin-411031
17. Ishwar Singh, Aged- 48 Years,
S/o Late Mr. M S Rawat,
Working as SE, Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o HQ CE A&N Zone, Brichgunj,
Portblair
18. Parveen Dutt, Aged- 48 Years,
S/o Late Sh. Lal Chand,
Working as Director (Contracts) in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
14
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o 366/2, VRC Enclave, Ridge Road,
Jabalpur Cantt.-482001
19. Ram Naresh Yadav, Aged- 51 Years,
S/o Sh. Ram Briksh Yadav,
Working as Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o Director, Chief Engineer (FY),
Hyderabad
20. Kamal Kumar Arora, Aged- 50 Years,
S/o Sh. K C Arora,
Working as SE (GM (Tech) in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o 502, Nimri Colony, Delhi-110052
21. Shirish Sharma, Aged- 47 Years,
S/o Sh. Ram Chandra Sharma,
Working as Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o 201/8, Sunworld' Vanalika' Sector-107,
Noida.
22. Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, Aged- 47 Years,
S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal Agrawal,
Working as SE, Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o FCM, CME, DAPODI, Pune-411031
23. Sachin Kumar Pandey, Aged-51 Years,
S/o Sh. Harendra Nath Pandey,
Working as Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o Director (Plg II) CE (Navy) Mumbai-26
Assaye Building Colaba Mumbai 05
15
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
24. Sushil Kumar Gupta, Aged- 50 Years,
S/o Sh. Ram Parkash Gupta,
Working as SE in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o 3234, Rose Patel Society, Sec.49-D,
Chandigarh-160047
25. Santosh Sharma, Aged- 49 Years,
S/o Sh. Ramji Sharma,
Working as Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o B204, Radha Krishna CGHS, Plot 23,
Sector-7, Dwarka, New Delhi.
26. Rajesh Lal, Aged-49 Years,
S/o Sh.Hira,
Working as Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o 42/3, Gun Factory, Type-V quarters,
MES Colony, Lucknow Cantt. Lucknow.
27. Rajinder Gupta, Aged-50 Years,
S/o Sh.Suraj Bhan Singh,
Working as Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o 40/2, Banddhir Colony, Mud Fort,
Secunderabad.
28. Narinder Singh, Aged- 48 Years,
S/o Sh.Iqbal Singh
Working as Director in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o 11D, Nirman Vihar, Pune Camp,
Pune
29. K.V.S. Ranga Rao, Aged- 56 Years,
S/o Sh. Ram Chander Rao,
16
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
Working as SE, CWE in MES,
Ministry of Defence, presently on
Deputation in Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
R/o 176/A, Air Force Station,
Pungarh, Distt.Bardhman(WB)
...Applicants
(Through Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
Govt, of India, New Delhi
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Govt, of India,
South Block, New Delhi.
3. Engineer-in-Chief,
Military Engineer Services,
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi
...Respondents
(Through Advocates: Mr. R K Sharma with
Mr. Gagandeep Yadav)
O.A. No. 2679/2019
1. Atul Kumar Pandey, Aged-49 Years,
S/o Late Sh. Satya Deo Pandey
Working as EE (QS&C) (SG)/DCWE(C),
HQ CWE (U) Delhi Cantt.
R/o HQ CWE(U) Delhi Cantt.,
Kotwali Road,
Delhi Cantt.-10
2. Sh. Ajay Kumar Rungta, Aged-46 Years,
S/o Sh. Suresh Chand,
Working as Director (Plg), HQ CE Bareilly Zone.
R/o Director (Plg) HQ CE,
Bareilly Zone
17
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
3. Sh. Vishal Garg, Aged-47 Years,
S/o Sh. S.K. Garg,
Working as Director, SE, HQ CE(AF) Allahabad Zone
R/o HQ CE(AF) Allahabad Zone, Bamrauli,
Allahabad-211012
4. Rakesh Prakash Maurya, Aged-49 Years,
S/o Sh. Ram Prasad Maurya,
Working as Superintending Engineer (Director), HQ
Chief Engineer (AIR force), Bangalore
R/o HQ CE(AF) Bangalore No.2 DC Area,
Yeshwantpur Bangalore, Karnataka-560022
5. Neeraj Kumar Anand, Aged-51 Years,
S/o Late Dr. Lakhan Lal, Working as Director
(Superintending Engineer),
HQ Chief Engineer (AF) Nagpur,
R/o HQ Chief Engineer (AF) Nagpur, Yayusena Nagar,
Nagpur (Maharashtra)-440007
6. Sanjay Agarwal, Aged-54 Years,
S/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal,
Working as Director, CME Pune,
R/o Row House No.4, Supriya Garden Aundh,
Pune-411007
7. Padmanabh Maniyar, Aged-56 Years,
S/o Sh. Bal Kriahna Maniyar,
Working as Commander Works Engineer, HQ CWE
Utilities, Delhi Cantt.
R/o P9b, Kotwali Road, Delhi Cantt.
8. Surbir Singh, Aged-49 Years,
S/o Sh. Dalip Singh,
Working as CWE, DGNP Mumbai,
R/o 1A, Viswakarma, NOFRA RC Charch, COLABA
9. P.Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Aged-50 Years,
S/o Sh. P. Malakonda Reddy,
Working as Director, CE(AF), Eastern Air Command,
Shillong Meghalaya
R/o Director, CE(AF), Upper Shillong.
10. Diwan Singh Bora, Aged-50 Years,
S/o Sh. Kishan Singh Bora,
Working as Director, ADG D&C Khadki Pune-411003
R/o ADG D&C Khadki Pune-411003
18
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
11. Vinay Yadav, Aged-49 Years,
S/o Sh. Joginder Singh Yadav,
Working as Superintending Engineer (SE),
CCE(NEP) (AF), Chabua
R/o P 549/03, Nirman Vihar 1, Hoshiar Singh Marg.,
Jaipur Military Station, Rajasthan-302012
12. Narendra Kumar, Aged-48 Years,
S/o Late Sh. B. Lal,
Working as Director, Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone,
R/o 51-D, MES Officers Enclave, Kotwali Road, Delhi
Cantt., New Delhi-110010
13. Narender Pal Singh, Aged-48 Years,
S/o Sh. Atma Singh,
Working as Director (Contracts) HQ CE (AF)
Udhampur Zone,
R/o Director (Contracts), HQ CE AF Udhampur Zone
14. Sardar Bhagat Singh, Aged-50 Years,
S/o Late Shatrughan Prasad Singh,
Working as SE Dir (Plg) HQ
Chief Engineer Shillong Zone,
R/o S B Singh Director (Plg) HQ CE Shillong Zone, SE
Falls Shillong, Meghalaya-793011
15. Shyam Narain Shukla, Aged-50 Years;
S/o Late Shri Ganga Shukla,
Working as SE, CE A&N Zone,
R/o P-503/4, Sarvatra Vihar, Khadki Pune-411003
16. Shailesh Kumar Maurya, Aged-51 Years,
S/o Late Shri Shashi Bhushan Maurya,
Working as Project Manager, PM OL Dinjan
R/o PM OL Dinjan, Dinjan Military Station,
786189, Assam.
17. Atul Kumar Namdev, Aged-55 Years,
S/o Shri G.K. Namdev,
Working as Director, HQ CE South, Western
Command, Jaipur,
R/o 580/4, Nirman Vihar, Prataap Lines,
Jaipur Cantt.301212
18. Srinivasa Rao Sabbineni, Aged-51 Years,
S/o Sh. S Bulliyya,
Working as Dir(Des), CE(AF), Udhampur,
19
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
R/o CE(AF) Udhampur Airforce Station,
Udhampur-182101
19. Birjesh Kumar, Aged-44 Years,
S/o Sh. SCL Sharma,
Working as DCWE Contracts, HQ CWE No.2,
Delhi Cantt.
R/o P 145/2, Kabul Lines, Delhi Cantt.
20. D Suresh Reddy, Aged-49 Years,
S/o Sh. D. Jayarami Reddy,
Working as Dir, Chief Engineer (A&N), Portblair
R/o Dir, HQ Chief Engineer (A&N) Zone,
Portblair-744103
21. Devinder Kumar, Aged-48 Years,
S/o Late Sh. Lal Chand
Working as Director (Pers & Legal) CE(NW), Kochi
R/o Dir (Pers & Legal), HQ CE (NW) Kochi,
Kochi-682004
22. Pankaj Kumar Pathak, Aged-50 Years,
S/o Sh. Prabhu Shankar Pathak,
Working as DCWE Contracts, HQ CWE, Udhampur,
R/o HQ CWE Udhampur Garhi Udhampur-182122
23. Anand Kumar Balmiki, Aged- 51 Years,
S/o Sh. Sia Ram Balmiki,
Working as DCWE(Contracts) HQ CWE
Khumbathang, Pin-900270
C/o 56ΑΡΟ,
R/o A-701, Fakhruddin Apptt. Plot 18, Sector-10,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
24. Munish Mohan Rastogi, Aged-46 Years,
S/o Shri Y.P. Rastogi,
Working as Joint Director (Contracts) HQ CE Leh
Zone, Leh,
R/o HQ CE Leh Zone, Spituk, Leh
25. Rajendra Kumar, Aged-51 Years,
S/o Shri Jahari Singh,
Working as Dir (Contracts), HQ CE A&N Zone,
Port Blair,
R/o Dir (Contracts) HQ CE A&N Zone Port
20
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
26. Prakash S. Jaiswal, Aged- 49 Years,
S/o Shriram Jaiswal,
Working as Jt Dir (Contracts) HQ CE A&N Zone,
Port Blair
R/o Jt Dir (contracts) HQ CE A&N Zone Port.
27. Ziauddin, Aged-46 Years,
S/o Shri Raziuddin,
Working as Jt Dir (Contracts), HQ CE A&N Zone,
Port Blair,
R/o Jt Dir (Contracts) HQ CE A&N Zone Port.
28. Bal Chand Awati, Aged-51 years,
S/o Sh. Upendra Prasad Singh,
Working as Director, HQ South Western Command,
Jaipur
R/o Director E& M SWC Jaipur
...Applicants
(Through Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
Govt, of India, New Delhi
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Govt, of India,
South Block, New Delhi.
3. Engineer-in-Chief,
Military Engineer Services,
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi
...Respondents
(Through Advocate: Ms. Anupama Bansal)
O.A. No. 2275/2019
1. Bhavesh Kumar , Aged- 49 Years,
S/o Sh. Anirudh Sahi,
Working as Director(contracts) in MES,
E-In-C's Branch, New Delhi.
21
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
Permanent r/o B-1, Tower 16 Type-V,
East Kidwainagar,
New Delhi-23.
2. Santosh Kumar Deota, Aged- 51 Years,
S/o Sh. M.P.Deota,
Working as Director(contracts), HQ DGBR,
Delhi Cantt, New Delhi-28,
R/o Flat No.1, Anupam Apartment, MB Road,
Saket, New Delhi-68
3. Neeraj Agrawal, Aged- 49 Years,
S/o Sh. S.P.Agrawal,
Working as Director(Contracts), CCE(NEP),
A.F.Chabua, Distt. Dibrugarh-786102
R/o OMQ-269/1, Air Force Chabua,
Distt.Dibrugarh-786102.
4. Rajeev Kumar, Aged- 53 Years,
S/o Sh. V.K.Varshney,
Working as Director(Contracts) CE,
Siliguri Zone.
R/o KPO-6B, Type-V Quarters,
Sevoke Road, MES, PO Salugara, Siliguri-734008
5. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Aged- 51 Years,
S/o Sh. Ram Gopal,
Working as Director(Contracts) CE,
Eastern Command, Kolkatta.
R/o 195/4, Ballygunge Maiden Camp,
Ballygunge, Kolkata-19
6. Reji Ashok, Aged- 53 Years,
S/o Shri P.Asokan,
Working as Director (Contracts),
E-In-C's Branch, New Delhi.
R/o P-158/5A, MES Officers Enclave,
Kabul Lines, Delhi Cantt.
7. P.K.S.Sengar, Aged- 52 Years,
S/o Sh. P.P.S.Sengar,
Working as Director (Contracts), DGMAP,
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi.
R/o Guest Room No.105,
Rainbow, MES Transit Accommodation,
Delhi Cantt.
22
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
8. G.Srinivasulu, Aged- 51 Years,
S/o Sh. G.V.Subbaiah,
Working as Director(Contracts) CE, Bareillyi Zone.
R/o 9/1, DCA Colony, MES Officers Enclave,
Bareilly Cantt.-243001
...Applicants
(Through Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
Govt, of India, New Delhi
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Govt, of India,
South Block, New Delhi.
3. Engineer-in-Chief,
Military Engineer Services,
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi
4. The Office-in-Incharge,
Central Record Office(Officers)
Delhi Cantt.-110010
...Respondents
(Through Advocate: Mr. Ranjan Tyagi)
O.A. No. 222/2020
Rakesh Verma,
Aged 48 years 'A'
S/o Sh. R B Verma,
Working as Director, HQ CE, Udampur,
R/o Chief Engineer Officers Mess,
Udhampur Zone, Sapper Enclave Chopra Shop,
PO: GHARI, Dist: UDHAMPUR 182121 (J&K)
...Applicant
(Through Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
23
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure, North Block
Govt, of India, New Delhi
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Govt, of India,
South Block, New Delhi.
3. Engineer-in-Chief,
Military Engineer Services,
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi
...Respondents
(Through Advocate: Ms. Sumedha Sharma)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
Since a common question of facts and law arise in the present O.A.s, they are being disposed of through this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are primarily being extracted from O.A. No. 1689/2020 with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present O.A. has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs :-
"8.(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order/OM dated 7.2.2019 (Annex.A/l) and order dated 12.10.2020 (Annex.A/2), and directing the respondents to maintain the benefits of OM dated 7.9.2016 and dt.3.8.2017 to the applicants with all the consequential 24 Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 benefits as already granted to the applicants before passing the impugned order, including refund of any recovered amount in compliance of impugned order.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation."
3. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants argued that the present case has been filed by the applicants to maintain the benefits of O.M. dated 07.09.2016 and 03.08.2017.
3.1. Earlier the benefits were accorded to the applicants in terms of the OM 03.08.2017 (Annexure-A/4). 3.2. The bunching in terms of the OM dated 03.08.2017 was granted at each and every stage i.e. upto 11 stages. For ready reference, on the basis of O.M. dated 03.08.2017, following benefits were to be accorded, which is clear from the table given below:-
Stage Stage Pay after Pay after Pay after in 6th 7 CPC by th 7th CPC 7th CPC CPC In multiplying as per as per PB-IV+ 2.57 factor revised revised GP as per CCS Table for Table for 8700 (RP) Rules, Level 13 Level 13 2016 of Pay of Pay Matrix Matrix 16.5.2017 16.5.201 (without 7 (with bunching bunching benefits) benefits)
1. 46100 118477 123100 123100
2. 47490 122049.3 123100 126800
3. 48920 125724.4 126800 130600 25 Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
4. 50390 129502.3 130600 134500
5. 51910 133408.7 134500 138500
6. 53470 137417.9 138500 142700
7. 55080 141555.6 142700 147000
8. 56740 145821.8 147000 151400
9. 57450 147646.5 151400 155900
10. 60210 154739.7 155900 160600
11. 62020 159391.4 160600 165400 3.3. Pursuant to the impugned notification, office memorandum dated 07.02.2019 for bunching of stage of pay in the pre 7th CPC pay scales consequent upon fixation of pay in the revised pay scales based on 7th CPC has been reduced to one stage i.e. a sum of Rs.
1,23,100/- and second stage is Rs. 1,26,800/- which has also been reflected by the learned counsel for applicants vide para 4.8. of the O.A, which is reproduced as under :-
6th CPC Pay Pay fixation in 7th CPC Pay Matrix (Level-13). structure(PB-4 and GP of Rs.
8700)
Pay Consolidation Pay fixed as Pay after Remarks
based on on 1.1.2016 bunching
2.57 multiple as on
1.1.2016
46,100 Rs.1,18,477 Rs.1,23,100 Rs.1,23,100
47,490 (46100 Rs.1,22,049 Rs.123,100 Rs.1,26,800 Pay raised
+ 3%) because of
bunching.
26
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 48,920(47,490. Rs.1,25,724 Rs.1,26,800 Rs.1,26,800 No Change +3%) 3.4. Learned counsel for the applicants did not dispute the fact that the issue came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai in O.A. No. 82/585/2021. He contended that in the said case the O.M. in question i.e. 07.02.2109, was not challenged and the O.A. was disposed of, in terms of the order passed in the matter of Kumar Gaurva Vs. M/o Finance, decided on 27th January, 2020 by the Principal Bench, with the following directions:-
"11. The matter has been heard at length. The Tribunal noticed that in the 6th CPC the pay scales were defined as running band along with a grade pay. The well defined stages of increment were not indicated in these pay scales unlike the position which existed upto and including 5th CPC. These stages in 6th CPC were to be arrived at for each individual employee separately, as that depended upon what basic pay he was drawing earlier and was to be granted 3% increment thereupon. This has been very clearly explained in the OM dated 03.08.2017. The applicant has been unable to bring out as to what unreasonableness or unjustfulness is contained in this OM dated 03.08.2017. In view of the foregoing arguments being put forth by the applicants to simply retain their stepping up, are not finding acceptability.
12. It is, however, noted that subsequent to 03.08.2017, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, have issued another OM dated 07.02.2019, on the same subject of "Bunching of stages of pay in the pre-7th CPC pay scales consequent upon fixation of pay in the revised pay scales based on 7th CPC-regarding".
The position of 03.08.2017 has been explained further with certain sample calculations.
13. The OA is disposed off with directions to respondents to revisit the pay fixation granted to the 27 Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 applicants on implementation of 7th CPC, keeping in view OM dated 07.02.2019. This exercise be completed within eight weeks and advise the result to applicants. The recoveries, if any are due, shall be worked out on this basis and advised to applicants and effected thereafter. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of.
14. However, in keeping with the ratio of the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, the recoveries as are due, shall be effected in easy installments and without any interest thereupon." 3.5. He further contended that this judgement is in personam and cannot be relied upon in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
3.6. He also contended that in the present matter, the applicants seeks to challenge the O.M. 07.02.2019, where the bunching has been restricted at the second stage only and not to the further stage. 3.7. Learned counsel also contended that even assuming for sake of the argument that the decision by the O.M. dated 07.02.2019 has to be applied prospectively, no recovery can be initiated, if the reliefs have already been granted to the applicants, as it is not, a clarification and it is a substantial decision.
3.8. Alternative argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that even assuming the decision is to be applied retrospectively, the recovery cannot be affected. 28 Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents in their respective O.As appear. Ms. Anupama Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents in OA No. 2679/2019, relied upon the avernments contained in the counter affidavit and submitted that the decision taken by the respondents is just and proper in terms of the recommendations made by the 7th Pay Commission.
4.1. She also relied upon para 11 of the counter reply filed in O.A No. 2679/2019, which reads as under:-
"11. That vide Office Memorandum No.1-6/2016-IC dated 07.09.2016 (Annexure R-3), Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) issued instructions on fixation of pay on cases of bunching of stages in the revised pay structure. It was decided that in cases where on revision of pay, the pay of Government servants drawing pay at two or more stages in pre-revised pay Band and Grade pay get fixed in the same Cell in the applicable level in the new Pay matrix, one additional increment shall be given for every two stages bunched and the pay of Government Servant drawing higher pay in the pre-revised structure shall be fixed at the next vertical Cell in the applicable level. The said OM also laid down that minimum difference should be at least 3% in the pre-revised pay band to be eligible for bunching."
4.2. In addition to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Anupama Bansal, Mr Hilal Haider, learned counsel for the respondents in O.A. No. 1689/2020, also highlighted para 4.11 of his counter reply, which reads as under:-
29
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 "4.11. That the contents of Para No. 4.9 to 4.11 of the Present Original Application under reply are admitted only to the extent what are matter of record and rest of the same are wrong and denied. It is further submitted that, the content of Para 5.1.36 of 7th CPC report may be read as reply to this ground.
It is submitted that the illustration provided in Para 5.1.37 (which has been annexed here as Annexure-R-VI) of its Report, the 7th Central Pay Commission, recommended additional increment of bunching at the pay which is 3% higher than the previous pay i.e.., it allowed bunching at the 2nd stage itself, if two pays are considered as separated by 3% even though it used the phrase "more than two" under Para 5.1.36 of its Report.
It is further submitted that, in the illustration, the 7th Central Pay Commission did not mention about the next stage of pay (after the 2nd stage), especially what happens if the pay at this stage becomes the same after bunching benefit at the stage. Thus, the commission did not recommend bunching in a cascading way. The 7th Central Pay Commission has illustrated its concept of bunching in a manner different from that of the 6th Central Pay Commission not only by allowing bunching at the 2nd stage as against the 6th CPC but also it did not recommended such bunching in a cascading way. Thus, the principle followed during the 6th CPC does not apply in the 7th Central Pay Commission- neither in the respect of 3rd stage bunching nor in a cascading way. It is moreover submitted that, while the benefit of additional increment for bunching in terms of the principle of bunching contained in the illustration given by the 7th Central Pay Commission was allowed, as already provided in the O.M.s dt 07.09.2016 and 03.08.2017, no benefit of bunching is to be considered in cascading way i.e., if after bunching at the previous stage, the next higher stage happens to be at the same revised pay. This is because such a benefit of additional increment based on bunching was admissible during the 6th Central Pay Commission if the bunching was to be considered at the 3rd stage, but as the 7th Central Pay Commission, has considered bunching at the 2nd stage itself, and has, thus, materially departed from the principle of 6th Central Pay Commission, no such cascading bunching was considered in the spirit of the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission, more so, because the commission itself did not recommend for such a cascading benefit. This principle was laid down in this Department's O.M. No. 1-6/2016- IC/E.III.A dt 07.02.2019. The copy of O.M. No. 1-6/2016- IC/E.llI.A dt 07.02.2019 has been annexed herewith as Annexure-R-Vll"
30
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
4.3. Learned counsel for the respondents have also taken objections that the Court should refrain from interfering in the matter of policies as decision has been taken as per the 7th Pay Commission.
5. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicants illustratively highlighted that in all the O.As initial pay of the applicants as on 31.12.2015 was as under:-
O.A. No. 1689/2020
Applic Name Pay as on First pay 2nd pay 3rd pay fixation ant 31.12.201 fixation fixation (w.e.f.
no. 5 (6th (w.e.f. (w.e.f. 01.01.16 &
CPC) 01.01.2016 01.01.16 & date of Pay
& date of date of pay Fixation)
Pay Fixation) (Bunching
Fixation) 7th (Pay withdraw in
CPC (initial corrected terms of Min.
pay fixation) by of Fin. OM
with original bunching dated
level (index in terms of 07.02.19)(Leve
of Min. of l 13 table
rationalisati Fin. OM modified with
on as 2.57) dated index of
03.08.17) rationalization
as 2.67)
1. Prabhakar 60,210 159,300 160,600 155900
Mittal
2. Sanjeeva 60,210 155,900 160,600 155900
Bajpai
O.A. No. 1028/2019
Applic Name Pay as First pay 2nd pay 3rd pay fixation
ant on fixation fixation (w.e.f.
no. 31.12.20 (w.e.f. (w.e.f. 01.01.16 &
31
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 15 (6th 01.01.2016 01.01.16 & date of Pay CPC) & date of date of pay Fixation) Pay Fixation) (Bunching Fixation) 7th (Pay withdraw in CPC (initial corrected terms of Min.
pay fixation) by of Fin. OM
with original bunching dated
level (index in terms of 07.02.19)(Leve
of Min. of l 13 table
rationalisati Fin. OM modified with
on as 2.57) dated index of
03.08.17) rationalization
as 2.67)
1 Neeraj 60,210 1,59,300 1,60,600 155900
Mehrotra
4 Vimal 55,080 1,41,600 1,47,000 142700
Kumar
Tiwari
5 Umesh 53,470 1,37,500 1,42,700 138500
Kumar
6 Piyush Jain 55,080 1,41,600 1,47,000 142700
7 Nalin 55,080 --- 1,47,000 142700
singhal
8 DAYANAND 56,740 1,47,000 1,51,400 147000
ARYA
10 Rajesh 53,470 1,37,500 1,42,700 138500
kesarwani
14 Vinod 55,080 1,42,700 --- ---
Kumar
15 Kapil 55,080 1,42,700 --- ---
Kumar
Gupta
16 Manoj 60,210 1,59,300 1,60,600 1,55,900
Bapna
17 Karra Raja 60,210 1,59,300 1,60,600 155900
Sekhar
18 Srinivas 55,080 1,50,200 1,47,000 142700
Nalla
19 Manish 60,210 1,59,300 1,60,600 155900
Khatri
21 Sanjeev 56,740 1,47,000 1,47,000 147000
Kumar
Nigam
22 V P 60,210 1,59,300 1,60,600 155900
Shrivastava
23 Paresh - 1,59,300 ---- ------
Kumar Goel
24 Sameer 55,080 1,42,700 1,47,000 142700
Pandey
25 Ashutosh 60,210 1,59,300 1,60,600 155900
Mishra
27 Rajeev 55,080 1,47,000 142700
Kumar Garg
28 SP Dwivedi 56,740 1,50,200 1,51,400 147000
32
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 30 Rajneesh 60,210 1,59,300 1,59,300 155900 Chandra 31 Dharmendr 60,210 1,59,300 1,60,600 155900 a Kumar Tripathi 32 Pankaj 60,210 Ν.Α. 1,60,600 155900 Tyagi 33 Anil Kumar 60,210 1,59,300 Garg 35 Vineet Modi 55,080 1,50,200 1,47,000 142700 36 Gopal 55,080 1,47,000 142700 Krishan Jha 38 Varinder Pal 53,470 1,37,500 1,42,700 138500 40 Sandeep 53,470 1,37,500 1,42,700 138500 Mittal 42 Suman 60,210 1,59,300 1,60,600 155900 Kumar 43 Anil Kumar 60,210 1,59,300 1,60,600 155900 Khandelwal 44 Puneet 60,210 1,59,300 1,60,600 155900 Kumar 45 Suneel 60,210 1,59,300 Kumar Arora 46 Vijay 60,210 1,62,300 157600 Kumar 47 Jagdish 60,210 1,59,300 1,60,600 155900 Parwani 48 Neeraj 60,210 1,59,300 1,60,600 155900 Kumar Sharma 49 B Srinivasa 43,210 1,33,500 Rao 51 Avanindra 53,470 1,37,500 1,42,700 138500 Kumar Dubey 54 Rajesh 51,910 1,33,500 1,38,500 134500 Kumar Singh 57 Ravi Gupta 53,470 1,37,500 1,42,700 138500 O.A. No. 1453/2019 Applic Name Pay as First pay 2nd pay 3rd pay fixation ant on fixation fixation (w.e.f.
no. 31.12.20 (w.e.f. (w.e.f. 01.01.16 & 15 (6th 01.01.2016 01.01.16 & date of Pay CPC) & date of date of pay Fixation) Pay Fixation) (pay corrected Fixation) 7th (Level 13 by bunching CPC (initial table in terms of 33 Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 pay fixation) modified Min. Of Fin.
with original with index OM dated
level (index of 03.08.2017)
of rationalizat
rationalisati ion as
on as 2.57) 2.67)
1 M.M. Singh 50390 129600 130600
2 Vinay 56740 147000
Pratap
Singh
3 Vivek Omar
4 Vinay 50390 130600 130600 134500
Kumar
5 B. Srinivasa 43210 133500 134500
Rao
6 Santosh 53470 137500 138500 142700
Kumar
Chouhan
7 Devendra
Kumar
Verma
8 Rajeev Garg 50390 130600 -- 134500
9 Devesh
Pandey
10 Rakesh
Kumar Soni
11 Ashok 51910 133500 134500 138500
Kumar
12 Akhilesh
Shukla
13 Kuldeep 50390 129600 130600 134500
Rastogi
14 D.V.
Maheshwar
15 Rajesh
Kumar
16 Ashok 53470 137500 138500 142700
Kumar
Sharma
17 Ishwar
Singh
18 Parveen
Dutt
19 Ram Naresh
Yadav
20 Kamal
Kumar
Arora
21 Shirish 50390 130600 130600 134500
Sharma
22 Rakesh 50390 129600 130600 134500
Kumar
Agarwal
23 Sachin 50390 129600 130600 134500
34
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 Kumar Pandey 24 Sushil Kumar Gupta 25 Santosh Sharma 26 Rajesh Lal 51910 134500 138500 142700 27 Rajinder 53470 137500 142700 Gupta 28 Narinder Singh 29 K.V.S. Ranga Rao O.A. No. 2679/2019 Appli Name Pay as on First pay 2nd pay 3rd pay fixation cant 31.12.201 fixation fixation (w.e.f.
no. 5 (6th (w.e.f. (w.e.f. 01.01.16 &
CPC) 01.01.2016 01.01.16 & date of Pay
& date of date of pay Fixation)
Pay Fixation)
Fixation) 7th (Pay (Bunching
CPC (initial corrected withdraw in
pay fixation) by terms of Min.
with original bunching of Fin. OM
level (index in terms of dated
of Min. of 07.02.19)(Leve
rationalisati Fin. OM l 13 table
on as 2.57) dated modified with
03.08.17) index of
rationalization
as 2.67)
3 Vishal Garg 51910 133500 138500 134500
7 Padmanabh 60210 159300 160600 155900
Maniyar
21 Devinder 48920 125800 130600 126800
Kumar
O.A. No. 2275/2019
Appli Name Pay as on First pay 2nd pay 3rd pay fixation
cant 31.12.201 fixation fixation (w.e.f.
no. 5 (6th (w.e.f. (w.e.f. 01.01.16 &
35
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 CPC) 01.01.2016 01.01.16 & date of Pay & date of date of pay Fixation) Pay Fixation) (Bunching Fixation) 7th (Pay withdraw in CPC (initial corrected terms of Min.
pay fixation) by of Fin. OM
with original bunching dated
level (index in terms of 07.02.19)(Leve
of Min. of l 13 table
rationalisati Fin. OM modified with
on as 2.57) dated index of
03.08.17) rationalization
as 2.67)
1. Bhavesh 51910 133500 134500 138500
Kumar
2. Santosh 51910 133500 No 138500
Kumar refixation
Deota done
3. Neeraj 56740 150200 151400
Agarwal
4. Rajeev 53470 137500 138500 142700
Kumar
5. Manoj 50390 129600 134500 142700
Kumar
Gupta
6. Reji Ashok 51910 133500 134500 138500
7. P.K.S. 53470 137500 138500 142700
Sengar
8. G. 43210 133500 134500 138500
Srinivasulu
O.A. No. 222/2020
Applic Name Pay as on First pay 2nd pay 3rd pay fixation
ant 31.12.201 fixation fixation (w.e.f.
no. 5 (6th (w.e.f. (w.e.f. 01.01.16 &
CPC) 01.01.2016 01.01.16 & date of Pay
& date of date of pay Fixation)
Pay Fixation) (Bunching
Fixation) 7th (Pay withdraw in
CPC (initial corrected terms of Min.
pay fixation) by of Fin. OM
with original bunching dated
level (index in terms of 07.02.19)(Leve
of Min. of l 13 table
rationalisati Fin. OM modified with
on as 2.57) dated index of
03.08.17) rationalization
as 2.67)
1. Rakesh 40220+87 126800 130600 126800
Verma 00 GP
36
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
6. Written submission has also been filed by the learned counsel for the applicants. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records of the case.
7. ANALYSIS :
7.1. To understand the concept of bunching, first we shall understand the situation where the concept of bunching is applied in service conditions.
What is bunching?
"Bunching occurs in the fixation of pay when the pay at two or more consecutive stages in a Pay Scale/ Grade pay in the pre -revised scale get fixed at the same stage in the corresponding pay Scale/ Level in the revised pay structure."
"Stage- "means to define" a difference of at least 3%, the rate of annual increment, in the 6th CPC pay structure was essential for counting of two stages."
7.2. 7th CPC addressed the issue of bunching of stages in the revised pay structure in following paras:-
5.1.36. Although the rationalisation has been done with utmost care to ensure minimum bunching at most levels, however if situation does arise whenever more than two stages are bunched together, one additional increment equal to 3 percent may be given for every two stages bunched, and pay fixed in the subsequent cell in the pay matrix.
5.1.37. For instance, if two persons drawing pay of ₹53,000 and ₹54,590 in the GP 10000 are to be fitted in the new pay matrix, the person drawing pay of ₹53,000 on multiplication by a factor of 2.57 will expect a pay corresponding to ₹1,36,210 and the person drawing pay of ₹54,590 on multiplication by a factor of 2.57 will expect a pay corresponding to ₹1,40,296. Revised pay of both 37 Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 should ideally be fixed in the first cell of level 15 in the pay of ₹1,44,200 but to avoid bunching the person drawing pay of ₹54,590 will get fixed in second cell of level 15 in the pay of ₹1,48,500."
7.3. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, vide G.S.R. 721(E) Dated 25th July 2016, came into effect from 1st day of January, 2016. The relevant extracts of the Rules for the present purpose are re-produced hereunder:-
7. Pay Matrix" means Matrix specified in Part A of the Schedule.
8. "Level" in the Pay Matrix shall mean the Level corresponding to the existing Pay Band and Grade Pay.
9. "Pay in the Level" means pay drawn in the appropriate Cell of the Level.
17. Junior getting more pay: Government servant, who, in the existing pay structure, was drawing immediately before the 1st day of January, 2016 more pay than another Government servant junior to him in the same cadre, gets fixed in the revised pay structure in a Cell lower than that of such junior, his pay shall be stepped up to the same Cell in the revised pay structure as that of the junior.
18. If senior Government servant promoted to a higher post before the 1st day of January, 2016 draws less pay in the revised pay structure than his junior in same cadre who is promoted to the higher post on or after the 1st day of January, 2016, the pay of senior Government servant in the revised pay structure shall be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay as fixed for his junior in that higher post and such stepping up shall be done with effect from the date of promotion of the junior Government servant.
20. Increment will happen in the vertical Cells of the applicable Level in the Pay Matrix.
Rule 7 Fixation of pay in the revised pay structure:-
(1) The pay of a Government servant who elects, or is deemed to have elected under rule 6 to be governed by 38 Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 the revised pay structure on and from the 1st day of January, 2016, 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 such lien 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-
(i) the pay in the applicable Level in the Pay Matrix shall be the pay obtained by multiplying the existing basic pay by a factor of 2.57, rounded off to the nearest rupee and the figure so arrived at will be located in that Level in the Pay Matrix and if such an identical figure corresponds to any Cell in the applicable Level of the Pay Matrix, the same shall be the pay, and if no such Cell is available in the applicable Level, the pay shall be fixed at the immediate next higher Cell in that applicable Level of the Pay Matrix.
(ii) if the minimum pay or the first Cell inat as per sub-clause (i) above, the pay shall be fixed at minimum pay or the first Cell of that applicable Level.
(B) In the case of medical officers in respect of whom Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) is admissible, the pay in the revised pay structure shall be fixed in the following manner :
(i) the existing basic pay shall be multiplied by a factor of 2.57 and the figure so arrived at shall be added to by an amount equivalent to Dearness Allowance on the pre-revised Non-Practicing Allowance admissible as on 1st day of January, 2006. The figure so arrived at will be located in that Level in the Pay Matrix and if such an identical figure corresponds to any Cell in the applicable Level of the Pay Matrix, the same shall be the pay, and if no such Cell is available in the applicable Level, the pay shall be fixed at the immediate next higher Cell in that applicable Level of the Pay Matrix.
(ii) The pay so fixed under sub-clause (i) shall be added by the pre-revised Non Practicing Allowance admissible on the existing basic pay until further decision on the revised rates of Non Practicing Allowance.39
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 ********* (7) Where the existing emoluments exceed the revised emoluments in the case of any Government servant, the difference shall be allowed as personal pay to be absorbed in future increases in pay. (8) Where in the fixation of pay under sub-rule (1), the pay of a Government servant, who, in the existing pay structure, was drawing immediately before the 1st day of January, 2016 more pay than another Government servant junior to him in the same cadre, gets fixed in the revised pay structure in a Cell lower than that of such junior, his pay shall be stepped up to the same Cell in the revised pay structure as that of the junior. (9) Where a Government servant is in receipt of personal pay immediately before the date of notification of these rules, which together with his existing emoluments exceed the revised emoluments, then the difference representing such excess shall be allowed to such Government servant as personal pay to be absorbed in future increase in pay. "
Rule 9. Increments in Pay Matrix.--The increment shall be as specified in the vertical Cells of the applicable Level in the Pay Matrix.
Rule 10. Date of next increment in revised pay structure:-
(1) There shall be two dates for grant of increment namely, 1st January and 1st July of every year, instead of existing date of 1st July:
Provided that an employee shall be entitled to only one annual increment either on 1st January or 1st July depending on the date of his appointment, promotion or grant of financial upgradation.
(2) The increment in respect of an employee appointed or promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) during the period between the 2nd day of January and 1st day of July (both inclusive) shall be granted on 1st day of January and the increment in respect of an employee appointed or promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under MACPS during the period between the 2nd day of July and 1st day of January (both inclusive) shall be granted on 1st day of July.40
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 Rule 11. Revision of pay from a date subsequent to 1st day of January, 2016.--Where a Government servant who continues to draw his pay in the existing pay structure is brought over to the revised pay structure from a date later than 1st day of January, 2016, his pay in the revised pay structure shall be fixed in the manner prescribed in accordance with clause (A) of sub-rule (1) of rule 7.
**** Rule 17. Interpretation.--If any question arises relating to the interpretation of any of the provisions of these rules, it shall be referred to the Central Government for decision.
7.4. Bunching and de-bunching is discussed in the two office memorandums of the Department of Expenditure dated 07.09.2016 and 03.08.2017.
7.5. We may note that an Office Memorandum dated 13.6.2017, was issued by the Ministry of Finance, DOE, GOI, wherein the implementation of bunching provisions were put on hold, the said communication is re-produced as under:-
"Subject: Recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission bunching of stages in the revised pay structure under Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016.
With reference to the subject mentioned above and in continuation of this Department's OM of even number dated 07.09.2016, the undersigned is directed to inform that, a large number of references have been received from Ministries/Departments seeking clarifications relating to the application of the benefit on account of bunching of stages while fixing the pay in the revised pay structure.
2. It has also been brought to the notice of this Department that some offices have extended the benefits on account of bunching based on subjective interpretation of the provisions of OM 41 Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 dated 07.09.2016, which may not be consistent with the principles and philosophy of the 7th CPC recommendations on bunching. Implementation of such pay fixation orders are not in conformity with the 7th CPC principles on bunching and may create further anomalies. In order to ensurer consistency of approach in applying the provisions relating to bunching and to address the queries on various aspects of bunching, it has been decided to issue detailed guidelines on bunching.
3. All Ministries/Departments are, therefore, advised that the implementation of the provisions on bunching in OM dated 07.09.2016 may be put on hold till the time the detailed instructions in this regard are issued by Department of Expenditure. It is also requested that if orders on account of bunching have already been issued by Ministries/Departments but not implemented, the same may not be given effect to."
7.6. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, introduced a Pay Matrix and a fitment factor of 2.57, replacing the 2008 Rules' pay bands and grade pay system, while the 2008 Rules introduced the concept of "Grade Pay" and "Pay Band". Another change which has been brought in 2016 Rules is that the 7th CPC addressed the issue of bunching of stages in the revised pay structure whereas in 2008 Rules, there was no specific mention of bunching of stages. OM dated 7.2.2019 is in consonance with Rule 17 of RP, Rules, 2016.
7.7. As per Para 5.1.28. of the 7th Pay Commission Report, pay fixation in the new pay structure will have to be made as follows:-
42
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 "Step 1: Identify Basic Pay (Pay in the pay band plus Grade Pay) drawn by an employee as on the date of implementation. This figure is 'A'.
Step 2: Multiply 'A' with 2.57, round-off to the nearest rupee, and obtain result 'B'.
Step 3: The figure so arrived at, i.e., 'B' or the next higher figure closest to it in the Level assigned to his/her grade pay, will be the new pay in the new pay matrix. In case the value of 'B' is less than the starting pay of the Level, then the pay will be equal to the starting pay of that level."
7.8. From reading of Para 5.1.28. read with 5.1.36. and 5.1.37. of the 7th Pay Commission Report following position would emerge as in illustrative case of Prabhakar Mittal:-
(i) Pre-revised Pay Band and = 37400-67000 + GP 8700/-
Grade Pay or Scale
(ii) Pay as on 31.12.2015 = 60210/-
(iii) Level 13 = (applied 2.57) = 154740/-
(iv) Cell 9 corresponding Revised = 155900/-
Pay Scale would be
not = Rs.159300/- *
(*It appears how the magical figure has been
arrived by applying Cell 11 as per own showing of applicant in para 3.4 above , which cannot be the case as the pay of the applicant Prabhakar Mittal was as on 31.12.2015 was 60210/-).
As per Cell 10, Level 13 - GP 8700/- the increment shall be payable as on 1.07.2016 = Rs. 160600/-. Applying Para 5.1.37, it would emerge that wherein the pay as on 31.12.2015 was 60210/- for two applicants as under
O.A. No. 1689/2020, the fixation of pay by the respondents in case of both drawing same pay scale 43 Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 as on 31.12.2015 was erroneous, which is being rectified:-
1. Prabhakar 60,210 159,300/- 160,600 155900 Mittal
2. Sanjeeva 60,210 155,900/- 160,600 155900 Bajpai We note that In light of Clause (A) (i) of Rule 7, all applicant's - the pay in the applicable Level in the Pay Matrix has to be obtained by multiplying the existing basic pay by a factor of 2.57, rounded off to the nearest rupee and the figure to arrive in that Level in the Pay Matrix identical to the figure corresponds to any Cell in the applicable Level of the Pay Matrix. The Onus is upon the individual to establish that which cell, the case of the applicant shall fall in the applicable Level either in the first cell of the pay or in second cell. The said shall relate to the exercise of option form for purposes of increment.
Depending on the pay drawn as on 31.12.2015, pay ought to be fixed at the immediate next higher Cell in that applicable Level of the Pay Matrix. This is important as the fixation of pay in purely personal in nature. Two individuals cannot be aligned with each other and as such fixation has to be done on case to case basis. 44 Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 7.9. From above Rule position, the following salient characteristics emerging from RP Rule, 2016 can be culled out:-
(i) The pay drawn on 31.12.2015 is to be taken into account for pay fixation on 1.1.2016.
(ii) It is clear that it is a matter of fixation of pay.
(iii) The fixation of pay in purely personal in nature.
Two individuals cannot be aligned with each others and as such fixation has to be done on case to case basis. Exercise of option under FR-22 also played a folly in the matter of pay fixation among st juniors and seniors which not only created anomaly but also disparities.
(iv) The OM dated 7.2.2019 is in the nature of clarification as to the methodology of carrying out principle of bunching. 7th Pay Commission did not recommend any additional benefit, consequent upon the bunching at lower level.
(v) The language used in the OM dated 7.2.2019 makes its explicit clear that purport is to aid and supplement, not to be construed or read in derogation of two office memos of the Department of Expenditure dated September 07, 2016 and August 03, 2017.
(vi) We cannot accept submissions on part of the applicant(s) that there is a marked departure from OM dated 3.8.2017 in OM dated 7.2.2019.
(vii) Revised Pay Rules 2016 has done away with bunching at each and every stage of increments. 7.10. An Office Memorandum dated 13.6.2017 was issued by Ministry of Finance, DOE, GOI, wherein the implementation of bunching provisions were put on hold. We cannot accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, that bunching has to be at each and every stage. Interestingly, there is no concept of bunching once a government servant arrives at Level 17 even though there is an element of bunching at level 16. 45 Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 This was not the purport of the OM dated 3.8.2017. The principles enshrined in 6th Pay Commission and RP, 2008 were quite distinct to that under 7th Pay Commission. In the 6th Pay Commission "Grade Pay" was the basis, whereas in 7th Pay Commission "Pay Matrix"
and "Level" at the basis to arrive at increment. The purport under new regime is to arrive in that Level in the Pay Matrix identical to the figure corresponding to any Cell in the applicable Level of the Pay Matrix. We also find that there is neither challenge to para 5.1.36 and 5.1.37 of 7th Pay Commission which dealt with bunching nor challenge to provisions of Clause (A) (i) of Rule 7 of the Revised Pay Rules 2016 and fixation of pay analogous thereto. Above all, the GOI has already issued clarifications in terms of Annexure-III, re-
produced herein below:-
Points of doubt raised and clarification thereon Sl. No. Point of doubt Clarification
1. Whether one increment of As explained in this 3% constitute one stage or Ministry's earlier OM a difference of 3% among dated 3.8.2017, the the pay of two officers stages of every pay scale constitute two stages. were well defined in the pay structure under 5th CPC regime and the stages were not well defined in the 6th CPC structure. Since there were no defined stages in the 6th CPC structure 46 Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 and as pay in the running Pay Band in the 6th CPC structure could be of any amount in the multiple of Rs. 10, as specific to an employee, it has been very clearly brought out therein, drawing upon the illustration given by the 7th Pay Commission in para 5.1.37 of its Report, that a difference of at least 3%, the rate of annual increment in the 6th CPC structure, was essential for counting of two stages. Therefore, for the purpose of considering bunching, two Pays drawn in a Pay Band with a particular Grade Pay, which are separated by 3% of the lower pay, are to be taken into account, as explained in the illustration given in para 9(i) of this order.
2. Whether the pay at Cell 1 Bunching is to be of any Level may be taken considered with reference as first stage. to the consecutive stages of pay drawn in the pay structure obtaining prior to 1.1.2016, as explained in these orders, and as such a reference to Celi 1, which is in the revised pay structure, is not relevant.
3. Whether all pay stages This point has been lower than the entry pay in amply clarified in the the 6th CPC pay structure aforesaid OM dated are not to be taken 3.8.2017. As into account for the mentioned in para 8(iv) purpose of bunching. thereof, all pay stages lower than the Entry Pay in the 6th CPC pay structure as indicated in the Pay Matrix contained in 7th CPC Report are not to be taken into account for determining the extent of bunching.47
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020
4. Whether benefit of The position clarified in bunching should be given these orders covers this only where previous and point. As explained in the current pay stages of the illustration, the pre- officers ( specific to each revised pay of Rs.46,100 employee) are getting and Rs. 47,490 are bunched and placed at the considered two stages of same Level in the 7th CPC pay, as these are matrix without any separated by 3% and comparison to any other these could be drawn by officer's pay as per para 5 any two officers.
and 8(iii) of this
Department's OM dated
3.8.2017 which stipulates
that a difference of 3% to
be reckoned for
determination of
consecutive pay stages,
specific to each employee.
5. Whether benefit of The issue of bunching is
bunching is to be given to a not a matter of pay
senior officer with reference drawn by a Senior Officer
to the pay of his junior vis-a-vis a Junior Officer.
officer who is drawing less As explained in these
pay with the difference of orders, bunching
3% to the senior officer and happens as in the
now his pay got fixed in illustration given in these
the same Level as that of orders and as such this
the senior officer. is not related to the
6. Whether the benefit of issue of seniority.
bunching is also required to
be given to a senior officer
where his junior's pay has
got fixed in the same Cell
as that of the senior due to
the benefit of bunching of
pay given to the junior.
7. Whether the benefit of It is not clear how two
bunching may be extended stages drawn by a single
on account of bunching of Government servant ore
two stages of pre-revised relevant for pay fixation
pay of a on 1.1.2016, as only the
Government servant alone. pay drawn on
31.12.2015 is to be taken
into account for pay
fixation on 1.1.2016.
8. Whether the benefit of As explained in the
bunching may be extended illustration contained in
only on direct pay fixation para 9(ii) of these orders,
where the pay of two по such benefit is
officers in the pre-revised admissible in such cases.
pay with a difference of 3%
get fixed at the same stage
in the revised pay structure
48
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019,
2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 (7th CPC) or also on further bunching with next higher pay stage due to grant of additional increment to an officer for bunching on initial/direct pay fixation.
7.11. The Courts have consistently held that where statutory rules are silent on a particular aspect, executive instructions may be issued to supplement the Rules, provided they do not override or contradict them. (All India Aircraft Engineers Association Vs. Air India Engineering Services Limited - Delhi (2022) Shiba Shankar Mohapatra VS State of Orissa - Supreme Court (2009).) 7.12. In B.R. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. (1999) 9 SCC 700, it was held as under:
"81. ... Thus, where there are two possible interpretations, one invalidating the law and the other upholding, the latter should be adopted. For this, the courts have been endeavouring, sometimes to give restrictive or expansive meaning keeping in view the nature of legislation, may be beneficial, penal or fiscal etc. Cumulatively it is to subserve the object of the legislation. Old golden rule is of respecting the wisdom of legislature that they are aware of the law and would never have intended for an invalid legislation. This also keeps courts within their track and checks individual zeal of going wayward. Yet in spite of this, if the impugned legislation cannot be saved the courts shall not hesitate to strike it down. Similarly, for upholding any provision, if it could be saved by reading it down, it should be done, unless plain words are so clear to be in defiance of the Constitution. These interpretations spring out because of concern of the courts to salvage a legislation to achieve its objective and not to let it fall merely because of a possible ingenious interpretation. The words are not static but dynamic. This infuses 49 Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 fertility in the field of interpretation. This equally helps to save an Act but also the cause of attack on the Act. Here the courts have to play a cautious role of weeding out the wild from the crop, of course, without infringing the Constitution. For doing this, the courts have taken help from the Preamble, Objects, the scheme of the Act, its historical background, the purpose for enacting such a provision, the mischief, if any which existed, which is sought to be eliminated.........."
(emphasis supplied) 7.13. In CST Vs. Radhakrishan (1979) 2 SCC 249, the Apex Court held as under:-
"15. ... In considering the validity of a statute the presumption is in favour of its constitutionality and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of constitutional principles. For sustaining the presumption of constitutionality the court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived. It must always be presumed that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people and that discrimination, if any, is based on adequate grounds. It is well settled that courts will be justified in giving a liberal interpretation to the section in order to avoid constitutional invalidity. These principles have given rise to rule of reading down the sections if it becomes necessary to uphold the validity of the sections. ... "
(emphasis supplied) 7.14. In S. K. Nausad Rahaman Vs. Union Of India 2022 INSC 287 decided on 10.03.2022, it was observed as under:-
"32. There is a fundamental fallacy in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants. Administrative instructions, it is well-settled, can supplement rules which are framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution in a manner which does not lead to any inconsistencies. Executive instructions may fill up the gaps in the rules. But supplementing the exercise of the rule making power with the aid of administrative or executive 50 Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 instructions is distinct from taking the aid of administrative instructions contrary to the express provision or the necessary intendment of the rules which have been framed under Article 309."
7.15. We would say that the view taken by the Coordinate Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of C Rajarahinam (supra) is the correct view. 7.16. The concept of 7th pay Fixation - bunching or de-bunching effect has been aptly explained by the team of Antar Bandyopadhyay, Mahuya Datta, Rajat S. Hazra, Krishanu Maulik, Deepayan Sarkar, Rudra P. Sarkar- Theoretical Statistics and Mathematics Division, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata on August 07, 2018 vide slides with due credits to them as under:-
Let be the 6th CPC Salary (= Basic + AGP) as of December 31, 2015. At first, the 7th CPC salary as of January 01, 2016 will be P1 (s), which is P1 (s) := (2.57 × s), where the ceiling function is defined by the discretization given in the 7th CPC Pay Matrix. This may lead to situations when x and y which are in different stages in the 6th CPC get bunched into the same cell of 7th CPC.
Such a scenario is called a bunching. Government Orders states that "one additional increment shall be given for every two stages bunched ...".
This will be termed as de-bunching.
What is de-bunching?
We need to understand the term stage.
"a difference of at least 3%, the rate of annual increment, in the 6th CPC pay structure was essential for counting of two stages."51
Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 The Item 5 (lines 9 - 10 there in) of the August 03, 2017 memo and Item 2 of the September 07, 2016 memo.
So The stages can easily be determined by the 6th CPC entry pay and then applying 3% annual increase resulting to the successive stages.
In the Item 8 of the August 03, 2017 OM:
8. Based on the above, it is clarified that the following shall be kept in view while determining the extent of bunching as also the benefits to be extended on account of bunching at the time of initial fixation of pay in the 7th CPC pay structure:
(i) Benefit on account of bunching is to be extended when two or more stages get bunched.
(ii) Benefit of one increment is to be extended on account of bunching of every two consecutive stages.
(iii) As stipulated in MoF OM dated 07.09.2016, a difference of 3% to be reckoned for determination of consecutive pay stages, specific to each employee.
(iv) AllpaystageslowerthantheEntrypayinthe6thCPCpayst ructure as indicated in the pay Matrix contained in the 7th CPC Report are not to be taken into account for determining the extent of bunching.
7.17. In ultimate analysis and in common sense what we could analyze is that whether the case of each individual applicant is aggrieved of bunching or de- bunching? We fail to understand.
7.18. We are not experts in this field, the same must be left to the financial experts available with the respondents to apply the Pay Fixation Methodology as per Pay Commission recommendations. The applicant(s) have failed to make out or establish any anomaly/disparity in comparison to one another. The 52 Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 onus is upon the applicant(s) as to how each individual has been deprived of his legitimate pay fixation or pay fixation has not been applied in right perspective either in terms of OM dated 3.8.2017 or 7.2.2019.
8. CONCLUSION :
8.1. The OA is disposed of with directions to respondents to revisit the pay fixation granted to the applicants on implementation of 7th CPC, keeping in view OM dated 07.02.2019. This exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and advice the result to applicants. The recoveries, if any are due, shall be worked out on this basis and advised to applicants on case to case basis wherever same is not in consonance with OM dated 7.2.2019.
However, in keeping with the ratio of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, the recoveries as are due, shall be effected in easy instalments and without any interest thereupon.
8.2. Pending M.As, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.
53Item No. 47/C-V O.A. No. 1689/2020, 1028/2019, 1453/2019, 2679/2019, 2275/2019 and 222/2020 (Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /SG/