IMPORTANT POINT
In reemployment in government service, an employee who was serving in Indian Army/in Armed Forces shall be entitled to his pay scales at par with his last drawn pay.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2135 of 2020 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and has held that the respondent-original writ petitioner being retired Army Force Personnel upon reappointment in the government service, would be entitled to his basic pay being fixed at par with his last drawn pay, the Union of India and others have preferred the present appeal.

2. The respondent-original writ petitioner was a Major in the Indian Army and was discharged from service on 15.07.2007. He was appointed as an Assistant Commandant (Medical Officer) in the Central Reserve Police Force, in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100 with grade pay of Rs. 5,400. The respondent-original petitioner claimed that as on the date of his discharge from the Indian Army, he was drawing pay of Rs. 28,340 with grade pay of Rs. 6,600, the same was entitled to be protected in terms of Para 8 of the Central Civil Services (fixation of Pay of Reemployed Pensioners) Order, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCS Order’). The original writ petitioner made a representation which came to be rejected by an order dated 24.04.2019. Thereafter the original writ petitioner preferred the writ petition before the High Court claiming that he would be entitled to his basic pay being fixed at par with his last drawn pay. Before the High Court heavy reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Government of India and Others vs. Captain (Retd.) Kapil Chaudhary in Writ Petition (C) No. 2331 of 2012. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has directed the appellants to rework the pay fixation of the original writ petitioner by holding that upon reappointment in government service the original writ petitioner being a retired Armed Force Personnel would be entitled to his basic pay being fixed at par with his last drawn pay.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in holding that on reappointment in the government service the original writ petitioner would be entitled to his basic pay being fixed at par with his last drawn pay, the Union of India and others have preferred this appeal.

3. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG, appearing on behalf of Union of India-appellant herein has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is on a misreading of Para 8 of CCS Orders.

3.1 It is submitted that as per Para 8 of the CCS Order on reappointment, an Emergency Commissioned Officer and Short Service Commissioned Officer who join the government service will be granted advance increments equal to the completed years of service rendered by him in Armed Forces on the basic pay scale which will be equal to or higher than the pay scale of the reemployed organization i.e. the civil post/the government post and not on the last drawn pay by the personnel in the Armed Forces.

3.2 It is submitted that Para 8 of the CCS Order does not speak about retaining of the last drawn basic pay or fixation at the rate of last drawn pay.

3.3 It is submitted that if the claim made by the respondent is allowed and it is held that on reemployment his pay fixation should be the last drawn pay in that case it violates the statutory provision of Para 8 of the CCS Order.

Making above submission, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.

4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Vinay Kumar Garg, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Garg, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is absolutely in consonance with Para 8 of the CCS Order.

4.1 It is submitted that the respondent was working as a Captain in