Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[12] According to the petitioner, those respondents with mala-fide motive have suppressed the office memorandum dated 04.07.2014. There is no dispute regarding release of stagnation increment on 01.02.2005. In this regard, the periodical increment certificate dated 15.02.2008, Annexure- P/29 to the rejoinder, issued by the Registrar (Officiating) has been referred by the petitioner. If another increment of `420/- in the pre-revised pay scale in terms of the office memorandum dated 04.07.2015 is released on 01.01.2006, the basic pay of the petitioner will be `19,140/-. Therefore, the petitioner after revision ought to have been fitted in the Pay Band of `44,700/- with AGP of `9,000/- meaning `53,700/- as per Fitment Table No.4 as provided by the communication under No.F.3-1/2009- U.I. dated 04.05.2009, Annexure-P/15 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to that revised basic pay as he has been holding the post of Deputy Librarian with more than three years of service but the respondents by way of suppressing the office memorandum dated 04.07.2014 have denied him the said revised basic pay. In defiance to the said memorandum, the revised basic pay of the petitioner has been fixed without adding one additional increment on 01.01.2006 in the pre-revised pay of `18,700/-. Thus, the petitioner's pay was revised to `52,390/- on Pay Band of `43,390/- with AGP of `9,000/- on 01.01.2006. The petitioner has categorically stated that by way of denying the Pay Band of `44,700/- with AGP of `9,000/-, the petitioner has been denied the revised pay of `53,700/- to which he is entitled according to the fitment principle as adopted by the said Table-4.

"As per office memorandum bearing No.10/02/2011- E.iii/A dated 19.03.2012 issued on the subject of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 the writ petitioner has claimed one increment as his increment date falls between 1st February to July, 2006 but as he has already reached the range of regulation in 2003, and he was given stagnation increment after every two years as per norms his next stagnation increment could not be granted in 2006. Thereafter another office memorandum issued bearing No.F.No.1/1/2008-IC dated 22.05.2013 regarding grant of 1 increment in pre revised pay scale - OM dated 19.03.2012 -clarification regarding in which has been clearly mentioned that as per fitment table, the stage of revised pay in the pay band has been mentioned at the same stage in respect of two consecutive pre-revised stages of pay in cases of certain pre-revised scales. The fitment table provides for the same revised stage in case of two consecutive stage in a particular pre revised scale of pay the benefit of bunching is admissible after granting of one increment in the pre revised pay scale in which it is to be strictly followed for fixation of pay in the revised structure without any deviation in the OM dated 30.08.2008. It also clarified that no further bunching will be allowed in such cases and no re-fixation of pay will be admissible in the revised pay as on 01.01.2006."

[23] From the Periodical Increment Certificate dated 15.02.2008 issued by the Registrar, Tripura University, Annexure-P/29 to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it is apparent that the date of yearly increment of the petitioner was on 01.02.2007 before the revision of pay given effect to. This is a very relevant date for assessing the consequence of the clarification as referred.

compounded increments for having the Ph.D. at the time of coming into force of the said regulation? [32] As already discussed that the Rule 10 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 provides the date of next increment in the revised pay structure. It has introduced uniform date of annual/ yearly increment i.e. 1st July of every year. The first increment after fixation of pay on 01.01.2006 in the revised pay structure will be granted on 01.07.2006 for those employees for whom the next date of increment was between 01.07.2006 to 01.01.2007. However, in the case of the person who had been drawing the maximum of the existing scale for more than a year as on 01.01.2006, the next increment in the revised pay structure shall be allowed on 01.01.2006 and thereafter, that provision will be applied. It has been further provided that in case where an employee reached the maximum of his pay band shall be placed in the next higher pay band after one year of reaching such a maximum. At the time of placing in the higher pay band, the benefit of one increment will be provided. Thereafter, he will continue to move in the higher pay band till his pay in the pay band reaches the maximum of Pay Band-4, after which no further increment will be granted. The petitioner is not concerned with 2nd proviso to Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. But the controversy has its fundamental genesis in the first proviso inasmuch as the petitioner's date of increment falls between 01.01.2006 and 01.07.2006 by way of stagnation increment in the pre-revised scale. Whether in such circumstances, the petitioner in view of the subsequent clarification would be entitled to get one advance increment on 01.01.2006 or not? It appears from the office memorandum dated 22.07.1998 that the stagnation increment used to be granted on completion of every two years at maximum of the respective scales in terms of the office memorandum dated 22.07.1998. The stagnation increment shall be 'equal to the rate of the increment last drawn by them in their pay scale and maximum of three such increments shall be allowed subject to the condition that the grant of stagnation increments shall be restricted to the post, the maximum of pay scale of which does not exceed `22,400/-. There is no dispute that the petitioner received the stagnation increment as is apparent from the Periodical Increment Statement issued by the Registrar, Tripura University. By the office memorandum dated 19.03.2012 it has been clearly stated that in relaxation of the stipulation under Rule 10 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 the Central Government employees who were due to get their annual increment between February to June during 2006 may be granted one increment on 01.01.2006 in the pre-revised pay scale as a 'one time measure'. But thereafter his increment should be on 01.07.2006 as per the said Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. In that memorandum, the reference has been made to the annual increment not to the stagnation increment. Whether the stagnation increment can be treated as the annual increment or not, is not available in the said memorandum dated 19.03.2012. In the office memorandum dated 22.05.2013 on having considered the office memorandum dated 09.03.2012 vis-à-vis the office memorandum dated 30.08.2008 which contained the fitment table it has been observed that there will be no change in the revised pay on 01.01.2006 even if OM dated 19.03.2012 is applied. In the circumstances, if after accounting for one increment in the pre-revised pay, the revised pay does not undergo any change as per the fitment table it would difficult for the petitioner to claim the revised pay in the next above scale. It has been also clarified that no further bunching will be allowed and no re-fixation of pay will be admissible in the revised pay as on 01.01.2006, meaning thereby that after adding one additional increment in terms of the office memorandum dated 19.03.2012, no further bunching would be provided and there will be no change in the revised pay as on 01.01.2006 if the revised stage on accounting one increment in the pre-revised scale, the pay does not undergo any change as per the fitment table. This clause has been seriously pressed by the respondents No.3 & 4 during their argument. But subsequently further relaxation has been made by the memorandum dated 04.07.2013, Annexure-P/30 to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. For purpose of reference, the said memorandum dated 04.07.2013 is entirely extracted hereunder: