Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Vinod Kumar Ojha vs Union Of India on 1 August, 2025
OA No. 956 of 2016
(Reserved on 24.07.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad, this the 01st day of August, 2025.
Original Application No.956/2016
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
Vinod Kumar Ojha aged about 47 years, Son of Shri Anirudh Prasad Ojha
Office Assistant in the Office of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Allahabad Division Allahabad.
.......Applicant.
By Advocate : Shri M.K. Upadhyay
Shri Sachin Upadhyay
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India,
Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications & IT Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director General Postal Services, Government of India New
Delhi 211001.
3. Chief Post Master General U.P. Circle Hazratganj Lucknow.
4. The Post Master General Allahabad Region Allahabad.
5. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Allahabad Division Allahabad
211001.
6. The Senior Post Master General Allahabad 211001.
....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Shivaji Singh
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):
Shri M.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Shivaji Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
"(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 22.05.2015 passed by the respondent no 6, only in respect of the applicant.
(ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondent for fixation of pay at time of his entry in the present RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 1 of 12 OA No. 956 of 2016 service at par with his last pay drawn in defence service with all consequential benefits.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the present case.
(iv) Award cost of original application in favour of the applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is presently working as a Office Assistant at the Office of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad. The applicant is an ex-serviceman having served in Indian Navy for fifteen years (from 07.01.1988 to 31.01.2003), and was discharged on 31.01.2003 as Petty Officer Air Fitter and the pre-retirement pay of the applicant was Rs 4695 (Basic pay 4575 + Good conduct Pay 120 = 4695).
The applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant with effect from 03.05.2005 against vacancy reserved for ex-serviceman. At the time of appointment, the respondents fixed basic pay of the applicant Rs 4000 initial pay of the pay scale 4000-100-6000 prescribed for direct recruits. As per provisions of CCS (fixation re-employed of pay of pensioners) orders, 1986, the basic pay of the applicant should be fixed Rs 4695 with effect from 03.05.2005. The Government of India issued a office memorandum dated 11.11.2008 for applicability of CCS (RP) Rule 2008 to persons re-employed in Government Service after retirement and whose pay is debitable to Civil Estimates. Para 3(iii) of the memorandum dated 05.04.2010 along with OM dated 08.11.2010 clarifies about Treatment of Military Service Pay (MSP) which states that in respect of all those Defence Forces Officers/ personnel, whose pension contain an element of MSP, that need not be deducted from pay fixed on re-
employment. The postal Department has re-employed many ex-servicemen under various capacities and have fixed their initial pay as last pay drawn in defence forces.
4. Heard the rival submissions.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 2 of 12 OA No. 956 of 20165. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant a re-employed ex-serviceman appointed as Postal Assistant on 03.05.2005, contends that under CCS (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986 and subsequent OMs dated 11.11.2008, 05.04.2010, and 08.11.2010, his basic pay ought to have been fixed at ₹4,695 (last pay drawn in defence service) from his date of appointment. Despite various clarifications and circulars including Ministry of Finance OM dated 30.08.2008, DOP&T OMs, and Postal Directorate letters confirming that re-employed pensioners' pay is to be fixed on the basis of last pay draw but his pay was not correctly fixed even after his transfer from Varanasi to Allahabad in 2007. On 14.11.2014, the applicant represented his case before Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad regarding fixation of his pay. It is submitted that in a similar matter, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of UOI & others VS. Mool Singh decided on 07.12.2001 has held that "In circumstances, as per the provisions of Order of 1986 relied upon by the Petitioner also the respondent- applicant was entitled to be fixed in the pay-scale of the post on which he was re-employed at the same stage at which he was last drawing the pay in his previous employment." It is submitted that the respondent No.5 while passing the order dated 27.05.2015 has not applied his mind regarding relevance of impugned order and failed to read para 4(b)(ii), 4(d) alongwith 3(iii), and 3(iv), of OM dated 05.04.2010 alongwith OM dated 08.11.2010. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.05.2015 is liable to be quashed and the applicant is entitled for the fixation of his pay at the time of entry in the department at par with his last pay drawn in defence services. It is also submitted that in this regard, the applicant has moved an application dated 22.03.2016 before respondent No.4, which is also pending. Hence, this OA.
6. The respondents have strongly refuted the allegations and submitted that the applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant w.e.f 03.05.2005 under RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 3 of 12 OA No. 956 of 2016 direct recruitment quota against vacancy reserved for Ex. Servicemen. It is submitted that the pay of the applicant has correctly been fixed in accordance with Para 4(a) and Para 4(b)(i) of Department of Personnel and training Memo dated 05.04.2010. It is further submitted that Para 3(iii) and 3(iv) are related to the person whose pension has not been ignored for pay fixation. It is also submitted that illustration 1 of Swamy's Pay Rules made Easy clearly shows that the pensioner held the post below commissioned officer rank before retirement, the entire pension and pension equivalent of retirement gratuity shall be ignored for the purpose of initial fixation of his pay in the re-employed post. In all cases where the pension is fully ignored, the initial pay on re- employment shall be fixed as per entry pay in the revised pay structure of the re-employed post applicable to direct recruits. On the basis of above discussion, he has submitted that the relief claimed by the applicant is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the OA should also be dismissed.
7. In rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has reiterated the similar facts as given in the OA and added that the applicant is a re-employed pensioner and deserves pay fixation in accordance with Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re employed Pensioners) orders 1986 as amended from time to time. The DOPT OM dated 05.04.2010 is issued with reference to aforesaid order. In the aforesaid OM, Para 3(iii) relates to treatment of military service pay which has been amended vide DOPT OM dated 08.11.2010 & 3(iv) relates to fixation of pay of personnel/ officers re-employed prior to 01.01.2006 and were in employment as on 01.01.2006. It is further submitted that while fixing the pay of the applicant Para 3(iii) & 3(iv) of DOPT OM dated 05.04.2010, which specifically mention and are applicable to the applicant, has not been taken into account. On the basis of above submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has requested to allow the OA.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 4 of 12 OA No. 956 of 20168. Considered the rival submissions and verified the documents available on record.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly relied on the following three judgments and OM dated 10.09.2024, which is as under :-
(i) Gurbachan Singh Vs. Union of India & ors. passed in OA No.4047 of 2013 decided by Principal Bench on 26.09.2014.
(ii) Bharat Prasad Gupta Vs. Union of India & ors. passed in OA No.341 of 2021 decided by Lucknow Bench on 26.09.2024.
(iii) Union of India Vs. G. Vasudevan Pillay passed in SLP (C) Nos.1585-95 of 1994 decided by Hon‟ble Apex Court on 08.12.1994.
(iv) F.No.02-61/2024 - PAP, Ministry of Communications Department of Posts (Establishment Division/P.A.P. Section dated 10.09.2024.
10. The OA No. 4047 of 2013 decided by CAT, Principal Bench on 26.09.2014 deals with the pay fixation of ex-serviceman who was posted as Postal Assistant. The main grievance of the applicant in the above OA was that the respondents did not protect his pay as provided in para 16 (2) of the Fixation of Pay of Reemployed Pensioners' Order 1986. The aforesaid para (16 (2) is reproduced as below :-
"Services rendered as Combatant Clerks and Storemen in Armed Forces shall be treated as equivalent to service Lower Division Clerks/Junior Clerks and Storemen respectively in civil posts, irrespective of the pay drawn in those posts in the Armed forces. The initial pay in such cases shall be fixed in the time- scale of the re-employed posts at a stage equivalent at a stage equivalent to the stage that would have been reached by putting in the civil posts, the number of completed years of service rendered in the posts in the Armed forces. The pay so fixed will not be restricted to the 'pre-retirement pay'. The fixation of pay in these cases shall be done by invoking the provisions of Fundamental Rules 27."
4. The applicant has contended that mere reading of this provision makes it abundantly clear that service rendered as Combatant Clerk in Armed Force is to be treated as equivalent to service as Lower Division Clerk and initial pay has to be fixed accordingly. The said Para 6 further reads as follows:-
"Order 16, of Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners Orders, 1986, should be brought to the notice of Ex-combatant clerks,/storemen on re-employment in Civil posts. It has been found in some cases that the provisions of Order No.16 of Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners Orders, 1986, were RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 5 of 12 OA No. 956 of 2016 not specifically brought to the notice of the individual concerned, which has resulted in their not opting for either set of orders (Orders 4,5 and 16) for their pay fixation within the prescribed time-limit. To obviate the difficulties in this regard, it has been decided that in future at the time of re-employment of an Ex-combatant clerk/storeman on civil posts, a reference to the different orders concerning pay fixation might be made and it might be mentioned that he has to exercise the said option within there months of his re-employment and such an option will be treated as final."
On the basis of above, the Tribunal has passed the following order, which is reproduced as below :_ "We therefore allow this OA and quash the impugned order dated 25.4.2013. We direct the respondents to re-fix the pay of the applicant in accordance with Para 16 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Reemployed Pensioners) Orders, 1986 after giving him the necessary option. The applicant shall also be entitled to consequential arrears. This benefit will be given to him within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, No costs."
On comparison of facts of the above OA and comparison of facts in the present OA clearly shows that it is different and does not help the applicant.
11. In OA No.341 of 2021, the Lucknow Bench of the CAT has passed the following orders relying upon the order passed in OA N0.4047 of 2013 i.e. Gurbachan Singh Vs. Union of India & ors. as discussed in the previous paragraph. The operating portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced as below :_ " Accordingly, Respondents / Competent Authority are directed to decide the case of the applicant in the light of judgment dated 26.09.2014 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 4047 of 2013 [Gurbachan Singh vs. Union of India & another] and the judgment dated 08.12.1994 of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the matter of Civil Appeal No. 3543-46/90 [Union of India & Others vs. G. Vasudevan Pillai & Others] within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order under intimation to the applicant forthwith.
The OA is disposed of in the above terms.
It is clarified that we have not touched upon the merits of the case.
Respondents/ Competent Authority shall consider and decide the applicability of the judgment passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 4047 of 2013 [Gurbachan Singh vs. Union of India & another] and the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the matter of Civil Appeal No. 3543-46/90 [Union of India & RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 6 of 12 OA No. 956 of 2016 Others vs. G. Vasudevan Pillai & Others] to the facts of the present case.
In the above OA, the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal has issued only direction to decide the case of the applicant in the light of the order passed in OA No.4047 of 2013.
12. In the case of Union of India Vs. G. Vasudevan Pillay, the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the following order, which is reproduced as below :-
"Our conclusions on the three questions noted in the opening paragraph are that denial of Dearness Relief on pension/family pension in cases of those ex-servicemen who got re-employment or whose dependants got employment is legal and just. The decision to reduce the enhanced pension from pay of those ex-servicemen only who were holding civil posts on 1-1-1986 following their re-employment is, however, unconstitutional."
The simple reading of the above case shows that the issue dealt by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above SLP is different than the issue involved in the present OA.
13. The OM dated 10.09.2024 preferred by the learned counsel for the applicant deals with " Services rendered as combatant clerks and store men in armed forces shall be treated as equivalent to service as Lower Division Clerk /Junior Clerks and store men respectively in civil post " ...The matter has been examined. Para 16(2) of this Department's O.M. dated 31.07.1986 provides as follows - "Services rendered as combatant clerks and store men in armed forces shall be treated as equivalent to service as Lower Division Clerks/ Junior Clerks and store men respectively in civil post, irrespective of the pay drawn in those post in the armed forces. The initial pay in such cases shall be fixed in the time scale of the re-employed post at a stage equivalent to the stage that would have been reached by putting in the civil post, the number of completed years of service rendered the post in the armed forces. The pay so fixed will not be restricted to the pre-retirement pay. The fixation of pay in these cases shall be done by invoking the provisions of the Fundamental Rules 27".
There seems no ambiguity in the instructions referred above as regards fixation of pay of ex-serviceman on re-employment in a civil post except that that post of Postal Assistant, in which Shri Pandey has been re-employed, has not been mentioned therein. The instructions contained in para 16(2) of DOPT's OM dated 31.07.1986 being pretty clear, D/o Posts may please take an administrative decision with regard to the pay fixation of Shri Pandey in the post of Postal Assistant in D/o Posts keeping in view the instructions referred above."
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 7 of 12 OA No. 956 of 2016In such case Para 16 (2) of the DOP&T OM dated 31.07.1986 is applicable is totally different the issue involved in the present case.
14. The respondents have relied on the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.535 of 2015 decided on 19.09.2018. The relevant para 02 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as below :-
"The facts in brief are that the applicant in this case is a retired military personnel who has been reemployed by the respondents vide order dated 01.08.2011 (Annexure A-5 to the OA) after his retirement from the military establishment on 31.01.2009 (para 4.1 of the OA). He was appointed in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 with the grade pay of Rs. 1800 and his initial pay was fixed at the basic pay of Rs. 5200 plus grade pay of Rs. 1800 (total Rs. 7000/-) as per the order dated 01.08.2011, which was accepted by the applicant, who joined the post on reemployment. Thereafter, he submitted the representations for re- fixation of his pay as per the para 3(v) of the circular dated 05.04.2010 of the Department of Personnel and Training (in short DOPT) which has been adopted by the Railway Board vide letter dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure CR-1 to the counter reply) for protecting the pay he was drawing at the time of his retirement from the military service. Since his representations were rejected, the present OA has been filed by the applicant.
And the OA was decided on the basis of various judgments, which is reproduced as below :-
"We have heard the applicant in person who also filed a written synopsis of the case, mainly reiterating the grounds taken in the pleadings. The applicant has also enclosed several judgments in support of his claim alongwith his Rejoinder Affidavit. Some of them are as under:-
i. Union of India & Anr. Vs. Charanjit S. Gill & Anr. - 2000(2) Service Cases Today 786.
ii. Judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 08.11.1996 passed in the case of Director General of Posts & Ors. Vs. B. Ravindran & Anr. iii. Judgment of Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in UOI & Ors. Vs. Mool Singh & Anr. - 2002 (4) WLN 603.
iv. Judgment of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Indian Council of Agricultural Vs. Bidesh Singh & Ors - 2008(1) SLJ 559 Delhi. v. Judgment of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in WP No. 43216/2004 & 45077-79/2004 (S-CAT) - The Station Director, All India Radio, Maysore Vs. M.S. Baligar & Ors dated 04.08.2011.
vi. Judgment of CAT, Bangalore Bench dated 18.06.2014 in OA No. 1093/2013 - C.M. Sathyan Vs. UOI & Ors.
vii. Judgment of CAT, Bangalore Bench dated 18.06.2018 in OA No. 1094/2013 - C. Raveendran Vs. UOI & ors.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents was also heard and he has also filed his written submissions, reiterating the grounds and the judgments cited in the main pleadings.RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 8 of 12 OA No. 956 of 2016
8. We have carefully considered the pleadings on record as well as the submissions/arguments of the learned counsels. The only question to be decided is whether the applicant, on reemployment by the respondents, is entitled for the benefit of protection of pay in accordance with the circular dated 05.04.2010 of the DOPT which has been adopted by the Railway Board vide letter dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit).
9. The applicant relies upon the para 3(v) of the DOPT circular dated 05.04.2010 and the subject matter of the para 3(v) states as under:-
"(v) Fixation of pay of personnel/officers who retired prior to 1.1.2006 and who have been reemployed after 1.1.2006:..........................."
It is clear from above that the para 3(v) is applicable to the personnel/officers who had retired from service prior to 01.01.2006 and re - employed after 01.01.2006. The applicant was retired from military service after 01.01.2006, due to which his case will not be covered by the para 3(v).
10. Other ground mentioned by the applicant is that in a number of cases of ex-military personnel on re-employment, have been allowed the benefit of pay protection. It is seen from some of the pay fixation orders enclosed by the applicant with the Rejoinder, that the benefit of pay protection under para 3(v) of DOPT circular dated 05.04.2010 has been allowed to some ex-military personnel retired after 01.01.2006. No specific denial of the pleadings in para 5 of the Rejoinder has been incorporated in the SCA filed by the respondents. It is seen from the DOPT circular dated 05.04.2010 that the benefit of pay protection can also be given under revised para 4(b)(ii) as stated in the Table in para 2 of the said circular, which states as under:-
"Para 4(b)(ii): In cases where the entire pension and pensionary benefits are not ignored for pay fixation, the initial basic pay on reemployment shall be fixed at the same stage as the lest basic pay drawn before retirement. However, he shall be granted the grade pay of the re-employed post............"
Hence, in cases where entire pension and pensionary benefits are not ignored for fixation of pay, the benefit of pay protection is to be extended to these cases. How the cases of other employees cited in the Rejoinder are similar to the case of the applicant have not been specifically mentioned in the pleadings.
11. Further, the revised para 4(a) of the para 2 DOPT circular dated 05.04.2010, which is cited by the respondents in the impugned order dated 13.11.2014 to deny the benefit of pay protection to the applicant, states as under:-
"Para 4(a): Re-employed pensioners shall be allowed to draw pay only in the prescribed pay scale/pay structure of the post in which they are re-employed. No protection of the scales of pay/pay structure of the post held by them prior to retirement shall be given........."
Above provisions imply that the protection of pay scale/pay structure of the reemployed retired employee cannot be granted and the re- employed person is entitled to the pay scale/pay band as per the term of re-employment. But the said provisions in para 4(a) does not state anything about the basic pay at which the pay of the re-employed person is to be fixed. This para 4(a) does not deny the benefit of protection of basic pay of the applicant prior to his retirement, if it is considered by the employer. It does not give any guarantee of protection of pay or pay scale, but it does not preclude possibility of the benefit of protection of pay or pay scale to the re-employed person depending on the terms and conditions of the re-employment.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 9 of 12 OA No. 956 of 201612. The applicant has cited some of judgments in his Rejoinder as stated in para 6 of this order. In the case of Charanjit S. Gill (supra), the dispute was regarding interpretation of the Army Rules,1954 and other issues, which are not relevant for the present OA. In the case of B. Ravindran (supra), the issue was relating to the grant of advance increment to re-employed retired persons from Armed forces as per the rules applicable at that point of time and the DOPT circular dated 05.04.2010 was not the issue in that case which is factually distinguishable. In the case of Mool Chand (supra), the dispute related to fixation of pay for the retired armed forces personnel at minimum of pay scale after re-employment. In this case, the retired persons were reemployed as Telephone Operator on 26.02.1982 and the question before Hon‟ble High Court was the interpretation of the Rules 1979 for fixation of pay read with the order dated 31.07.1986. This rules of 1979 as well as the order dated 31.07.1986 are not applicable in the present OA. In the case of Bidesh Singh (Supra), the issue was similar to the case of B. Ravindran (supra) and the said decision will not be applicable to the present OA since the rules and circulars examined in this order are not applicable in the present case. In the case of M.S. Baligar (supra) decided by Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court , the order dated 12.04.2004 of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal was challenged by the Station Director, All India Radio. The question in that case was whether the re-employed retired employees of Armed forces can give their option for refixation of pay after three months as per rules prevalent at that time. The orders / circulars after 01.01.2006, which are applicable to the present OA, were not examined or interpreted in this judgment. In the case of C.M. Sathyan (supra) decided by Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, it is not clear if the case of the applicant is similar to the case of the employees covered in that OA, who seem to have retired prior to 01.01.2006. Similarly, in the case of C. Raveendran (supra) decided by Bangalore Bench, the applicant has not shown how his case is similar to the case of C. Raveendran in respect of the retirement date and deduction or non-deduction of pension from the pay after re-employment.
13. The respondents have cited the order dated 1.5.2015 of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prithvi Nath Tiwari and others (supra) in OA No. 277/2014 and OA No. 827/2014, it was held as under:-
"1. The claim made in both these OAs relates to the fixation of pay of Ex-Servicemen appointed as Helpers in the Railways on re-employment. Since the background of the matter and the grounds for relief are similar, these are disposed of through a common order. However, for convenience the facts are taken from OA No.060/00277/2014 wherein relief has been sought as follows:- .........................................................
10. We have given our careful consideration to the matter. From the content of para 4(a), 4(b) (i) and 4(d) as reproduced above it is quite clear that the applicants who retired after 01.01.2006 and who were reemployed in 2011 are not entitled to protection of their Military Service Pay as claimed by them. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicants are not material to this case as these relate to the pre 2006 position while the applicants have retired after 2006 and have only got re- employment in 2011. They have also accepted the employment with open eyes as it was clear to them as per their appointment letters that no pay protection would be admissible to them. Hence, there being no merit in these OAs, the same are rejected. Copy of this order may also be placed in file relating to OA No.060/00827/2014."RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 10 of 12 OA No. 956 of 2016
14. It is clear from above, that in the case of the employees in the case of Prithvi Nath Tiwari (supra), the date of retirement from military service was after 1.1.2006 (as stated in para 10 of the order dated 1.5.2015 extracted above), which is also the case for the applicant in the present OA. Hence, the case of the applicant is squarely covered under the order dated 1.5.2015 (Annexure SCA-3) and the applicant in this case, will not be entitled to the relief claimed in the OA.
15. It is seen from para 8 of the counter reply, that the case of the applicant has been dealt by the respondents under para 4(a) read with para 4(d)(1) of the DOPT circular dated 5.4.2010 enclosed with Counter Affidavit alongwith Annexure CA-1. Under para 4(d)(1), the pension of the re-employed employee is to be fully ignored. The contentions have not been contradicted by the applicant, who has argued that his case should have been covered under para 3(v) of the said circular dated 5.4.2010. In a similar case of the employees, where the pension on account of military service has been ignored for pay fixation, the matter came up before Bombay Bench of this Tribunal in the case of B.N. Chauhan and others vs. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others (OA No. 401/2013), where the employees after retirement from Armed forces, were re-employed by the Ministry of Defence and in the OA No. 401/2013, they had claimed the benefit of protection of pay citing the DOPT circular dated 5.4.2010. The Tribunal, vide order dated 19.8.2013 dismissed the OA No. 401/2013, with the findings as under (indiankanoon.org/doc/168922553):-
"6. We have gone through the O.M. issued by DOP&T dated 05.04.2010 which deals with the applicability of Central Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2008 to persons re-employed in Government service after retirement and whose pay is debitable to civil estimates. These Rules were amended after the introduction of a system of running pay band and the grade pay. The revised provision proposed in the said O.M. have been extracted and reproduced herein below for convenience:
„Para-4(a): Re-employed Pensioners shall be allowed to draw pay only in the prescribed pay scale / pay structure of the post in which they are re-employed. No protection of the scales of pay / pay structure of the post held by them prior to retirement shall be given.
Note: Under the provisions of C.C.S. (R.P.) Rules, 2008, revised pay structure comprises the Grade Pay attached to the post and the applicable Pay Band.
Para-4(b)(i): In all cases where the pension is fully ignored, the initial pay on re-employment shall be fixed as per entry pay in the revised pay structure of the re- employed post applicable in the case of direct recruits appointed on or after 01.01.2006 as notified vide Section II, Part 'A' of First Schedule to CCS (RP) Rules, 2008.‟
7. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the Applicants in the Original Application. We have also carefully perused the impugned order at Annexure A-1 dated 20.03.2012. Relevant portion from the impugned order is extracted hereinbelow for convenience:
„As per Para 4(a) of Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, letter No.03.19.2009 Estt. (Pay-II) dated 5th April 2010, Re-employed Pensioners shall be allowed to draw only minimum of pay of the prescribed pay scale / Pay structure of the post in which they are re-employed on Protection of the RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 11 of 12 OA No. 956 of 2016 scales of Pay/Pay Structure of the post held by them prior to retirement shall be given.
Also refer Para 4(b)(I) of proposed revised provision wherein all cases where the pension is fully ignored, the initial pay on reemployment shall be fixed as per entry Pay in the revised pay structure of the re-employed post applicable in the case of direct recruits appointed on or after 01.01.2006 notified vide Section II, Part 'A' of First Schedule to C.C.S.(R.P.) Rule 2008.‟
8. A perusal of the above provision would clearly reveal that the Applicants are entitled to draw only minimum of pay of the prescribed pay scale / pay structure of the post in which they were re-employed since they are already drawing pension for the period of service rendered by them in the Army. In case, however, the Applicants would not have been drawing the Pension, their pay would have been fixed as contended by them in the present Original Application. We are, therefore, not convinced by the arguments advanced by the Applicants that the pay has been wrongly fixed."
The applicant‟s case in the present OA before us is similar to the case of the employees in OA No. 401/2013 as the pension received by the applicant from the military establishment has been ignored fully while fixing his pay after reemployment under the Railways and the applicant was retired from Armed Forces after 01.01.2006 like the employees in the OA No. 401/2013.
16. Regarding the point of delay raised by the respondents, it is observed that the matter pertains to dispute about fixation of pay at the time of reemployment of the applicant vide order dated 01.08.2011. The claim pertaining to fixation of pay as per the rule is considered to be a recurring cause of action. Hence, the objection on account of delay has no force.
17. In the circumstances as discussed above, we are not able to accept the reliefs prayed for in the OA, which is liable to be dismissed following the order dated 01.05.2015 of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prithvi Nath Tiwari (supra). Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No costs."
15. The facts of the above OA and the facts of the present OA, which is under consideration are similar and deserve similar treatment. On the basis of above, the OA is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
16. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member(Administrative) Member(Judicial)
RKM/
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 12 of 12