This writ petition challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order fixing the appellant's pay in a lower scale upon transfer. The Court held the Tribunal correct, ordering pay fixation at the stage equal to the appellant's previous pay in the higher grade, within the limits of the lower scale.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 31769 of 2007 (Z)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 369/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 3.1.2007.
PETITIONERS:
BY ADV SRI N.NAGARESH (ASGI) SHRI.SOORANADU S.SREEKUMAR, CGC
RESPONDENT:
P. RAJUMON S/O. P.E.JOSEPH, STENOGRAPHER GRADE III, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,, (INVESTIGATION) AYAKAR BHAVAN, KANNOTHUMCHAL, CHOVVA (PO) KANNUR, PIN - 682 218.
BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.31769/07
PETITIONER'S EXTS:
EXT.P1: COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION O.A.No.369/05 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
EXT.P2: COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OA No.369/05.
EXT.P3: COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ALONG WITH DOP & TOM No.16.6.2001-ESTT PAY-1 DT.14.2.2006 R.W. OM.DT.4.1.07.
EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA No.369/05 DT.3.1.2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF OM IN F.NO.A-22020/76/89-AD-VII DT.14.5.90.
RESPONDENTS' EXTS :
EXT.R1(A): COPY OF UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT. EXT.R1(B): COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KANNUR FIXING THE GRADE TO SMT.PREETHA SATHYAN, AN IDENTICAL EMPLOYEE AS OF THE RESPONDENT.
TRUE COPY
P.S.TO JUDGE
dsn
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.31769 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JUNE, 2016
JUDGMENT
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON , J .
Challenge is raised by the Government/Department against Ext.P4 order dated 3.1.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.369/2005, whereby pay fixation has been ordered in terms of Annexure A8 Office Memorandum issued by the competent authority, by way of clarification as to the fixation in terms of Fundamental Rule 22(i) read with Rule 22(vii) in respect of a person who gets a transfer and posting on request in conformity with the mandate of Rule 15(a) of the Fundamental Rules. The sequence of events is as follows:
W.P.(C)No.31769/07 -2-
circumstances had sought for an 'inter-charge transfer' from Mumbai to Kerala. When this application was pending consideration before the Departmental authorities, a vacancy of stenographer Grade III arose in the Direct Recruitment Quota, which in turn was informed to the respondent asking him whether
he was willing to come over to the Kerala Region, to the above lower cadre, in accordance with the relevant Rules. Immediately, consent was expressed by the respondent and on getting Annexure A2 undertaking, agreeing to suffer reversion to the next lower post of Stenographer Grade III, carrying a lower scale of pay of 4000-6000, the respondent was reverted and given a₹ posting in the Kerala charge as per Annexure A3 order dated 9.6.2004.
W.P.(C)No.31769/07
-3-
Department contending that the course pursued by the Department was perfectly within the four walls of the law and that the respondent/applicant was not entitled to have any higher fixation. The Department also sought to rely on Annexure A8 with regard to the interpretation of the relevant Rules as aforesaid. As per the said OM, no relief was liable to be extended to the applicant. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal observed that there was no dispute with regard to the factual aspects or as to the relevant Rules which were to be applied.
W.P.(C)No.31769/07 -4-
There was also no dispute with regard to the OM issued by the competent authority as per Annexure A8 and that the question to be considered was whether the fixation effected by the Department was in tune with Annexure A8. The Tribunal observed that the fixation effected by the Department was not in conformity with the clarificatory OM issued as per Annexure A8 and held that the pay of the applicant was liable to be protected at 5600/- in the lower scale of 4000-6000, which alone has₹ ₹ been directed to be effected by the Department. This is not correct or sustainable, according to the Department and hence the challenge in W.P.(C)No.31769/2007.
W.P.(C)No.31769/07 -5-
not in dispute. There is no case for the respondent/applicant that he has to be given a higher pay scale, as applicable to 'Stenographer Grade II', which he was drawing earlier, when he was transferred from Mumbai. The claim is only with regard to correct pay fixation given in the lower scale of 'Stenographer Grade III', i.e., in the scale of pay 4000-6000. The relevant portion of Annexure A8 reads as follows:
“2. The demand of the Staff Side has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and it is clarified that on transfer to the lower post/scale under FR 15(a), the pay of a Government servant holding a post on regular basis will be fixed at a stage equal to the pay drawn by him in the higher grade. If no such stage is available, the pay will be fixed at the stage next below the pay drawn by him in the higher post and the diffrence may be granted as personal pay to be absolute in future increments. If the maximum of the pay scale of the lower post is less than the pay drawn by him in the higher post, his pay may be restricted to the maximum under FR 22(1)(a)(3).”
From the contents of Annexure A8, it is explicitly clear that in respect of a person who is a beneficiary for transfer under FR.15 (a), fixation is to be effected at a stage equal to the pay drawn
W.P.(C)No.31769/07 -6-
by him in the higher grade and if no such grade is available, the pay has to be fixed at the stage next below the pay drawn by him in the higher post and the difference in pay has to be granted as personal pay to be made absolute in the future increments. The Rule further says that, if the maximum of the pay scale of the lower post is less than the pay drawn by him in the higher post, his pay may be restricted to the maximum under FR.22(1)(a). Obviously, the maximum of the lower scale is 6000 (4000-₹ 6000), whereas the pay which was being drawn by the respondent/applicant at the time of his transfer was at 5600/-.₹ This being the position, going by the mandate of the Rule as clarified by the competent authority vide Annexure A8, fixation had to be done at a stage equal to the pay drawn by him in the higher grade, i.e., at 5600/- in the scale of 4000-6000. This₹ ₹ alone has been ordered by the Tribunal as per Ext.P4 and this being the position, there is absolutely no scope for interference at the hands of this Court.
W.P.(C)No.31769/07
-7-
respondent, way back in 2007 itself.
The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed
accordingly.
Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON , JUDGE
Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
dsn
True copy
P.S.to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal correctly fixed the pay of the appellant in the lower scale equal to the pay drawn in the higher grade under the Office Memorandum clarifying Fundamental Ru
Whether the respondent was entitled to be fixed at a higher stage within the lower pay scale despite the maximum of the lower scale being less than the pay drawn in the higher post?
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the Tribunal's order should succeed?
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India (represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance)
Commissioner of Income Tax
P. Rajumon
P.R.Ramachandran Menon
Anil K.Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
