IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision granting pay protection, emphasizing adherence to established legal precedents and rejecting arbitrary distinctions in pay protection eligibility.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 05.08.2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short ‘the CAT’) allowed the application of respondent holding him to be entitled for pay protection along with all the consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners are that initially on 14.12.2009, the applicant/respondent herein joined the service as Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers probationer (for short "IRSME") and after completing the probation period, he was promoted to the post of Junior Administrative Grade of IRSME & at present the applicant/respondent herein is working as Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Diesel), at Raipur Division. Before joining the service under IRSMe, the applicant/respondent herein served as regular employee of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (for short ‘the ONGC’) in the capacity of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) & after completion of training he was posted as Assistant Executive w.e.f 23.03.2004. Thereafter, the applicant/respondent succeeded in the UPSC Engineering Service Examination 2008 and was appointed as IRSME and was released from ONGC on 10.12.2009 and joined the services of IRSME probationer on 14.12.2009. The applicant/respondent resigned from ONGC and by that time he was drawing basic pay of Rs. 35560/- with DA amounting to 8997/- (in pay scale of Rs.29100-54500/-) and while joining IRSME the applicant/respondent was grated basic pay of Rs. 21,000/- (in Pay Scale of 15,600-39100/-) GP 5400/-in Pay Band -3. After completion of probation period of the applicant/respondent, he preferred a representation on 12.03.2013 for grant of benefit of pay protection followed by several reminders. Vide letter dated 08.06.2020 (Annexure P/2), the representation of the applicant/respondent was decided stating that the appointment of the applicant/respondent in IRSME (Railways) was direct recruitment through open competitive examination and not through interview, which was in accordance with Establishment Rule No. 27/2001. Being aggrieved by the rejection of representation claiming pay protection, the applicant/respondent moved an application before learned Central Administrative Tribunal on 01.12.2020 being registered as O.A No. 203/650/2020 claiming benefit of Pay Protection.

3. The respondent/petitioners herein filed their reply to the O.A. No. 203/650/2020 stating that the representation of the applicant/respondent was rightly rejected denying pay benefits in accordance with Establishment Rule No. 27/2001 dated 22.03.2001 (Annexure P/4), which has been framed in consonance with R.B.E No.16/2001 dated 12.02.2001. Further, the Said R.B.E No.16/2001 is a repatriation of DOP&T's OM No. 12/1/96-Estt. (Pay 1) dated 10.07.1998. However, the learned CAT, relying upon the judgment passed in the matter of Sanjog Kapoor V. Union of India (2007 LawSuit (Del) 107) allowed the application of the applicant/respondent vide order dated 05.08.2022 (Annexure P/1) granting benefit of pay protection with all consequential benefit, which is under challenge in this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the judgment passed by the learned CAT is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The applicant/respondent had accepted the terms of work and grade pay while accepting the employment under IRSME through direct recruitment and it was within the knowledge of applicant/respondent that the joining post carries the lower grade pay but the said fact has not been taken into consideration by the learned CAT while allowing the case of the applicant/respondent. Learned counsel further submits that the learned CAT failed to differentiate the finding of Sanjog Kapoor’s (supra), wherein while rejecting the claim, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax solely relied upon De