Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
B Poiyaamozhi vs M/O Shipping on 26 March, 2025
1 OA No. 549/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00549/2020
Dated this, the 26th day of March Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, Member (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A)
B.Poiyaamozhi,
Development Adviser (Ports) (Retd),
Flat No. 17, Block D2, Paruthipattu,
Kendriavihar,
Avadi-Poonamalli Road, Chennai 600071. .....Applicant
By Advocate Dr. R. Sampathkumar
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Rep by the Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Shipping, No. 1, Parliament Street,
401, Transport Bhavan, New Delhi 110001.
2.The Joint Secretary,
Government of India,
Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell 7th CPC,
North Block, New Delhi 110001.
3.The Under Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of Shipping (Estt Section),
428, Transport Bhavan,
No. 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001. ....Respondents
By Advocate Dr. K. Kannan
2 OA No. 549/2020
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A)) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
"to call for the records to pertained to the Order No.19011/28/1993-Estt dated 28-01-2020 passed by The Under secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of shipping (Estt Section), Transport Bhawan, New Delhi. 110001 the 3rd respondent herein, and order dated 19-08-2016 in file No.A-26022/2/2016-Estt passed by the Under secretary, Ministry of shipping and direct the respondents to comply the instruction in para No.3 of the Office Memorandum No.1-6/2016-IC dated 7-9-2016 and to fix the pay properly and pass and all such or other relief as the court may deem fit proper and thus render justice."
2. The facts of the case as submitted by the Applicant, are as follows, in brief:-
2.1. The applicant was working as Development Adviser (Ports) in the Pay scale of Rs 37400-67000 with Grade Pay of Rs 10,000 (Level 14) at Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi from 02.06.2010 till his retirement on superannuation on 31.08.2016.
2.2. Based on the 7th pay commission report, the Ministry of Finance issued revised pay rules on 25.7.2016, and the applicant's pay was fixed on 19.08.2016 to the scale of Rs. 1,44,200/- at the entry level pay of Level 14 of 7th Pay commission as on 1.1.2016 as old scale of pay as on the date of pay fixation was 54,980/-. However, the pay fixation should have been done to the scale of pay of Rs. 1,48,500/-.
2.3. The guidelines regarding "Bunching of Stages" were also issued by the Ministry of Finance vide OM dated 07.09.2016, which stated that one additional increment shall be given for every two stages bunched. The 3 OA No. 549/2020 applicant represented on 15.09.2016 stating that he was eligible for one more increment on 01.07.2012 and another additional increment on 01.07.2014 and 01.01.2016. The above guidelines dated 07.09.2016 also mentioned the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission Report at Para 5.1.37 which states that, if two persons drawing pay of Rs. 53,000 and Rs. 54,590 in the GP of Rs 10,000, their pay has to be fixed in the new pay matrix as on 1.1.2016 as Rs. 1,44,200 and Rs. 1,48,500 respectively. Therefore, the applicant is eligible to get his scale of pay of Rs.1,48,500/-.
2.4. Subsequently, the Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell, 7th Pay Commission had issued another set of guidelines pertaining to "Bunching of stages" vide OM dated 03.08.2017. As per Para 7 of guidelines, it has been indicated that all Pay stages below the Entry Pay in any level will on re-fixation converge to the first pay stage in that level.
Relying on the said guidelines, the applicant submitted a detailed representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, on 28.5.2018, wherein the applicant categorically specified that he is eligible to get his new scale of pay Rs1,48,500/- as on 01.01.2016 instead of Rs. 1,44,200/-. 2.5. As per direction of the Director of Public Grievances, the applicant represented on 17.12.2018, 14.02.2019, 08.04.2019, 19.04.2019 and 11.11.2019 directly to the Ministry of Shipping. The Department of Expenditure issued another set of guidelines regarding "Bunching of Stages"
vide OM dated 07.02.2019 in which further two clarifications have been 4 OA No. 549/2020 given which are applicable to the applicant. The Dept. of Expenditure vide note dated 12.12.2019 and advised the Ministry of Shipping to take action in terms of Department of Expenditure OM dated 07.02.2019 especially it's para 9 (i) along with clarifications at points 4-6 of Annexure-III. 2.6. However, on 28.01.2020, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping had rejected the matter stating that the applicant's pay was fixation was examined in the Ministry in light of clarification received from the Department of Expenditure. It was further informed that pay fixation done by the Ministry vide order dated 19.08.2016 and subsequent corrigendum dated 05-09-2016 was in order. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the aforesaid relief. 3.1. The respondents have filed their reply opposing the relief prayed by the applicant. It is contended that the applicant had misinterpreted the facts mentioned in Ministry of Finance OM dated 07.02.2019. As per this OM, it was decided that in case wherein revision of pay, the pay of Government servants drawing pay at two or more stages in pre-revised Pay Band and Grade Pay or scale, as the case may be, get fixed at 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 pre-revised structure shall be fixed at the next vertical cell in the applicable level. For this purpose, pay drawn by two Government servants in a given Pay Band and Grade Pay or scale where the higher pay is 5 OA No. 549/2020 at least 3% more than the lower pay shall constitute two stages. Officers drawing pay where the difference is less than 3% shall not be entitled for this benefit. Accordingly, the applicant is not eligible for one additional increment on 01.07.2012, 01.07.2014 and 01.01.2016. 3.2. As per 7th CPC report's para 5.1.37, if two persons drawing pay of Rs. 53,000 and Rs. 54,590 in the grade pay Rs. 10,000 are to be fitted in the new pay matrix, the person drawing pay of Rs. 53,000 on multiplication by a factor of 2.57 will expect a pay corresponding to Rs. 1,36,210 and the person drawing pay of Rs. 54,590 on multiplication by a factor of 2.57 will expect a pay corresponding to Rs. 1,40,296. Revised pay of both should ideally be fixed in the first cell of Level 14 of the pay of Rs. 1,44,200 but to avoid bunching, the person drawing pay of Rs. 54,590 will get fixed in second cell of Level 14 in the pay of Rs. 1,48,500. The applicant was drawing a pay of Rs. 54,980/- in pre-revised scale of PB-4 Rs. 37400-67000. After implementation of 7th CPC, this pay was multiplied by a factor of 2.57 and the figure came out to Rs. 1,41,299 which was ideally fixed in entry pay of Rs. 1,44,200/- in Level-14 of pay matrix as per 7th CPC. The applicant, however, misinterpreted above point by saying that there is an indication that the person drawing pay of Rs. 54,590 will get fixed in second cell of Level 14 in the pay of Rs. 1,48,500/- which is totally wrong as his pay was fixed at Rs. 1,44,200/- by multiplying his previous pay of Rs. 54,980 by 2.57 and then fitting the same in Level-14 of pay matrix as per 7th CPC. The 6 OA No. 549/2020 benefit of bunching by giving one additional increment is granted when two stages in pre-revised pay band and grade pay of 6th CPC are fixed at same cell in the applicable Level in the new pay matrix of 7th CPC. 3.3. After receiving multiple representations from the applicant on the same subject again and again, file was referred by the respondents to Department of Expenditure for clarity as to whether benefit of bunching in the revised pay structure of the 7th CPC may be granted to the applicant, who was getting pay of Rs. 54,980/- in pre-revised scale and whose pay in 7th CPC was fixed in Level 14 of pay matrix at the stage of Rs. 1,44,200/-. The Department of Expenditure advised the respondent Ministry to take action in terms of their OM dated 07.02.2019 especially the para 9(i) along with clarifications given at points 4 to 6 of Annexure-III and the same was scrupulously followed.
3.4. After examining all the representations of the applicant as per the advice of Department of Expenditure, it was found that pay fixation done by the Ministry was correct and all his representations were, accordingly, disposed off vide Ministry's letter dated 28.01.2020. Accordingly, the respondents have submitted that the applicant's pay was correctly fixed and prayed for dismissal of the OA as devoid of merits.
4. The respondents have further filed their additional reply substantiating their contentions in the reply. It is contended that the respondents had examined eligibility of the applicant for bunching benefits with respect to 7 OA No. 549/2020 the entry pay of Rs. 53,000/- in PB-4, as requested by the applicant. The file was referred to the Ministry of Finance for advice on pay fixation, and the M/o. Finance advice dated 12.12.2019 clearly instructed adherence to their orders on bunching, specifically those dated 07.09.2016, 03.08.2017, and 07.02.2019. The M/o Finance guidelines state that bunching benefits apply only when consecutive pay stages in the pre-revised pay scale are fixed at the same cell in the 7th CPC pay matrix. Since this condition was not met in the applicant's case, the applicant's request was rejected by following the applicable rules.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records including the written submissions filed by the learned counsel for applicant.
6. The issue of bunching is principally guided by two office memorandums of the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance dt. 03.08.2017 and 07.02.2019. In the OM dt. 03.08.2017, bunching is defined as a situation when the pay at two or more consecutive stages in the Pay Scale / Grade Pay in the pre-revised scale gets fixed at the same stage in the corresponding Pay Scale / Level in the revised pay structure during fixation of pay. In such a case, it is desirable that the pay of the employee with higher pre-revised pay should be fixed comparatively higher than the employee whose pay is less in the pre-revised scale. However, the modalities of determining the extent of bunching and the nature of benefits to be extended is decided each time by the recommendation of the respective pay 8 OA No. 549/2020 commissions. While the 5th Pay Commission has recommended that the benefits of bunching is to be extended when more than four stages get bunched, the 6th CPC recommended that benefits of bunching to be extended when two or more stages get bunched. However, the principle of bunching in the revised pay structure in 7th CPC is independent of the principles followed earlier and has no link thereto. The relevant para of OM dt. 03.08.2017 is extracted below :-
"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) All pay stages lower than the Entry Pay in the 6th CPC pay structure 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."
(emphasis supplied)
7. Further the OM dt. 07.02.2019 provides clarification on the methodology for applying the principle of bunching. The relevant para of the OM dt. 07.02.2019 is extracted below :-
"6. The 7th Pay Commission has dealt with the issue of bunching in paras 5.1.36 and 5.1.37, which are reproduced below.
"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 9 OA No. 549/2020 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 Rs. 53,000 and Rs. 54,590 in the GP 10000 are to be fitted in the new pay matrix, the person drawing pay of Rs 53,000 on multiplication by a factor of 2.57 will expect a pay corresponding to Rs 1,36,210 and the person drawing pay of Rs. 54,590 on multiplication by a factor of 2.57 will expect a pay corresponding to Rs. 1,40,296. Revised pay of both should ideally be fixed in the first cell of level 15 in the pay of Rs.1,44,200 but to avoid bunching the person drawing pay of Rs. 54,590 will get fixed in second cell of level 15 in the pay of Rs.1,48,500."
7. Accordingly, the essence of the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission is contained in the above illustration given by the 7th Pay Commission. As per this illustration, the pay of Rs. 53,000 and Rs. 54,590 were the pay applicable in PB-4 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 10,000 as applicable prior to 1.1.2016, which corresponds to Level-14 of the Pay Matrix applicable from 1.1.2016. The pay of Rs. 54,590 was 3% more than the pay of Rs. 53,000. That is, these two Pays were separated by a difference of 3% of Rs. 53,000. Thus, the pay of Rs. 54,590 was the stage next to the pay of Rs. 53,000. Considering that the 7th Pay Commission allowed the benefit of bunching at the level of the pay of Rs. 54,590 itself, it materially departed from the principle followed at the time of 6th Pay Commission because in the 6th Pay Commission regime the benefit was allowed at the 3rd consecutive stage and not at the 2nd stage itself (next stage) for the purpose of bunching.
8. Furthermore, in the illustration given in para 5.1.37 of its report, the 7th Pay Commission has not mentioned about the pay in respect of pre-revised pay of Rs. 56,230, which is 3% more than the pay of Rs. 54,590. The revised pay fixed in the Level 14 with reference to the pre-revised pay of Rs. 56,230 will be Rs. 1,48,500. This will be the same as the pay to be given with reference to the pre-revised pay of Rs. 54,590 after allowing bunching. However, the 7th Pay Commission did not recommend any additional benefit in such cases, as it did not include in its illustration for any benefit in case of the further stages of pre-revised pay consequent upon bunching at the lower stage.
9. In view of the above, the benefit of bunching consequent upon fixation of pay in the revised pay structure effective from 1.1.2016 based on the recommendation of the 7th Pay Commission is to be considered in the light of the above and the clarifications already issued in terms of the aforesaid letter dated 3.8.2017. Accordingly:
(i) Where consequent upon fixation of pay in terms of Rule 7 (1) (A)(i) of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2016, two different pay drawn in the pay structure obtaining immediately before 1.1.2016, which were separated by one another by 3% of the previous stage, are fixed at the same cell of the applicable Level of the Pay Matrix effective from 1.1.2016, then the benefit of bunching by way of one additional increment as on 1.1.2016 shall be admissible in respect of the pay which is more than 3% of the 10 OA No. 549/2020 previous pay as per the illustration given by the 7th Pay Commission in para 5.1.37, as mentioned above. This is further illustrated as below:
6th CPC Pay scale: PB-4 (37,400-67,000) 7th CPC Pay Scale - Level-13 + Grade Pay Rs.8,700/- (1,23,100-2,15,900) 6th CPC Pay fixation in 7th CPC Pay Matrix (Level-13) Structure (PB-
4 and GP of Rs.
8,700) Pay Consolidation Pay fixed as on Pay after based on 2.57 1.1.2016 bunching multiple 46,100 Rs. 1,18,477 Rs.1,23,100/- Rs.1,23,100/- 47,490 Rs.1,22,049 Rs.1,23,100/- Rs.1,26,800/- (46,100+3%)
(ii) In view of the position explained in para 8 above and the specific recommendation of the 7th Pay Commission as per its illustration given in para 5.1.37 of its report, no further action is to be taken after the benefit of bunching as a result of application of Rule 7(1)(4)(i), as indicated above. This is as illustrated below:
6th CPC Pay Pay fixation in 7th CPC Pay Matrix (Level-13) Structure (PB-4 and GP of Rs. 8,700) Pay Consolidation Pay fixed as Pay after Remarks based on 2.57 on 1.1.2016 bunching as multiple on 1.1.2016 46,100 Rs.1,18,477 Rs.1,23,100/- Rs.1,23,100/-
47,490 Rs.1,22,049 Rs. 1,23,100/- Rs.1,26,800/- Pay raised
(46,100+3%) because of
bunching.
48,920 Rs. 1,25,724 Rs. 1,26,800 Rs. 1,26,800 No
(47,490+3%) change.
"
8. Learned counsel for the respondents, Dr. K. Kannan, ACGSC submits that after receiving multiple representations from the applicant regarding anomaly in his pay fixation, the matter was referred to the Department of Expenditure for clarification. The Department of Expenditure advised the 11 OA No. 549/2020 respondents vide their ID Note dt. 12.12.2019 advising the respondent no. 1 to take action in terms of the Department of Expenditure OM No. 1-6/2016-
IC/E.IIIA dt. 07.02.2019 especially its para 9(i) along with clarifications given at points 4 to 6 of Annexure - III. The same has been extracted in para 6 above and the points of doubt raised and the clarifications thereon is issued in Annexure - III in para 4 to 6 is reproduced below :-
" Annexure III Points of doubt raised and clarifications thereon Sl. Point of doubt Clarification No ....
4. Whether benefit of bunching The position clarified in should be given only where these orders covers this previous and current pay stages of point. As explained in the the officers (specific to each illustration, the pre-revised employee) are getting bunched pay of Rs. 46,100 and Rs. and placed at the same Level in 47,490 are considered two the 7th CPC matrix without any stages of pay, as these are comparison to any other officer's separated by 3% and these pay as per para 5 and 8(iii) of this could be drawn by any two Department's OM dated 3.8.2017 officers.
which stipulates that a difference of 3% to be reckoned for determination of consecutive pay stages, specific to each employee
5. Whether benefit of bunching is to The issue of bunching is be given to a senior officer with not a matter of pay drawn reference to the pay of his junior by a Senior Officer vis-a-
officer who is drawing less pay vis a Junior Officer. As
with the difference of 3% to the explained in these orders
senior officer and now his pay got bunching happens as in the
fixed in the same Level as that of illustration given in these
the senior officer. orders and as such this is
6. Whether the benefit of bunching is not related to the issue of
also required to be given to a seniority.
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.
(emphasis supplied)"
12 OA No. 549/2020
9. It is undisputed that the applicant is drawing the Grade Pay of Rs. 10000 in the Pay Band of Rs. 37400 - 67000 since 02.06.2010 from the date of joining in the post. As per recommendations of 7th CPC, persons drawing the pay of Rs. 53,000/- or below in the 6th CPC are not entitled for any benefit due to bunching. The applicant crossed his threshold limit of Rs. 53000/- on 01.07.2014 by virtue of increment order No. F. No. A- 29018/7/09-Estt dt. 11.07.2014 issued by respondent authorities granting him pay of Rs. 43370 + 10000 (GP) = Rs. 53370 w.e.f. 01.07.2014. Subsequently, his pay was fixed next year at Rs. 54980/- (Rs. 44980 + 10000 (GP)) w.e.f. 01.07.2015 which has a difference of 3% in pay. Thus on 01.01.2016 on the date of implementation of 7th CPC pay structure, his pay in the pre-revised scale was Rs. 54980/-, which is more than the pay of Rs. 54590 cited in the instance mentioned in para 6 of the OM dt. 07.02.2019. Therefore, he meets all the four criteria mentioned in OM dt. 03.08.2017 cited in para 6 above.
10. During the course of arguments, we had asked both the learned counsel for applicant as well as the learned counsel for respondents to submit the pay calculation sheet in the 7th CPC in respect of the employees who were drawing pre-revised 6th CPC pay of Rs. 53370/- and Rs. 54980/- respectively and to show whether bunching occurs or not. While the learned counsel for respondents failed to submit any revised pay fixation statement, the learned counsel for applicant has submitted a pay fixation calculation 13 OA No. 549/2020 sheet which can be tabulated below as per illustration in 07.02.2019 guidelines;
6th CPC Pay Pay fixation in 7th CPC Pay Matrix (Level-13) Structure (PB-4 and GP of Rs. 8,700) Pay Consolidation Pay fixed as Pay after Remarks based on 2.57 on 1.1.2016 bunching as multiple on 1.1.2016 53,370 Rs.1,37,170/- Rs.1,44,200/- Rs.1,44,200/-
(01.07.2014)
54980 Rs.1,41,298/- Rs. 1,44,200/- Rs.1,48,500/- Pay raised
(53370+3%) because of
(01.07.2015) bunching.
11. From the above, it is observed that the pay of Rs. 53370/- as well as pay of Rs. 54980/- in the pre-revised 6th CPC pay scales gets fixed in the 1st cell of Level-14 in 7th CPC pay matrix which is Rs. 144200/-. Thus, it is a clear case of bunching and as per DoE OM dt. 07.02.2019, the applicant's pay being Rs. 54980/- is required to be fixed in the 2nd cell of Level-14 in 7th CPC pay matrix which is Rs. 1,48,500/- and not at Rs. 1,44,200/- as sanctioned by the respondent authorities. The Department of Expenditure in para 4 & 6 of Annexure-III has clarified that for bunching of pay in only two stages are to be compared and no two persons as contended by the respondents. They have also clarified that bunching is not related to the issue of seniority, ie., between two persons.
12. In view of the above, the applicant succeeds and accordingly, the order No. A-26022/2/2016-Estt dt. 19.08.2016 in respect of the applicant 14 OA No. 549/2020 alone and subsequent letter No. 19011/28/1993-Estt. dt. 28.01.2020 rejecting his representation is quashed and set aside. The competent authority among the respondents is directed to issue revised pay fixation order for the applicant in the light of the above findings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. No order as to costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member (A) Member (J)
26.03.2025
SKSI