2023 Supreme(Del) 1891
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Shail Attrey – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 569 of 2018
Decided On : 01-02-2023
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Mr. N.K. Singh and Ms. Aliza Alam, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Chandan Prajapati and Mr. Apoorv Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondents.
The court emphasized the need to protect the benefits granted at the time of initial pay re-fixation and highlighted the application of Fundamental Rule 19, FR 22(I)(a)(3), and FR 15(a) in reaching its decision.
Headnote:
Rank Pay - Pay Fixation Dispute - FR 19, FR 22(I)(a)(3), FR 15(a) - The court discussed the dispute regarding the pay fixation of a former Colonel in the Indian Army who joined DRDO as a Scientist 'E'. The court upheld the initial pay protection given to the petitioner but directed the respondents to ensure that re-fixation of pay after the initial pay protection does not amount to withdrawal of benefits granted at the time of initial re-fixation. The court highlighted the application of Fundamental Rule 19, FR 22(I)(a)(3), and FR 15(a) in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Colonel in the Indian Army, joined DRDO as a Scientist 'E' and had a dispute regarding the pay fixation. The court analyzed the previous orders and petitions related to the pay fixation and the subsequent contempt petition filed by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the initial pay protection given to the petitioner but directed the respondents to ensure that re-fixation of pay after the initial pay protection does not amount to withdrawal of benefits granted at the time of initial re-fixation.
Issues: Dispute over pay fixation, implementation of previous tribunal orders, and the protection of rank pay in the pay scale of Scientist 'E'.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to protect the benefits granted at the time of initial pay re-fixation and highlighted the application of Fundamental Rule 19, FR 22(I)(a)(3), and FR 15(a) in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to ensure that re-fixation of pay after the initial pay protection does not amount to withdrawal of benefits granted at the time of initial re-fixation.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. (Oral)--The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated August 03, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short Tribunal) in O.A. No. 3019/2012 whereby the Tribunal declined to interfere in the Office Order dated April 27, 2012 fixing the pay of the petitioner in DRDO.
2. The facts as enumerated in para 2 & 3 of the impugned order dated August 03, 2016 passed by the Tribunal may be briefly recapitulated.
"2(i) The applicant was a Colonel in the Indian Army. He joined the DRDO in the civilian capacity in the year 2002. While in the Army, the applicant was drawing rank pay of Rs.2000/-. When he was absorbed as Scientist 'E' in DRDO, the respondents did not include rank pay while fixing his pay as Scientist 'E'.
(ii) The applicant approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1802/2005 and the Tribunal vide order dated 29.03.2007 directed the respondents to pay to the applicant, from the time he joined DRDO, his full Army pay including basic pay, rank pay, stagnation increments and NPA as he was drawing at the time of joining in DRDO as Scientist 'E'. However, the Tribunal also directed that interest @ 6% p.a. be paid on the arrears of pay calculated as above.
(iii) The order of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.7645/2007 vide order dated 11.12.2007 and the SLP filed by the respondents was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18.08.2008.
(iv) The respondents have issued office order dated 27.04.2012 (Annexure-A) by which last salary being drawn by the applicant of Rs.25313/- in Army was protected while fixing his pay at Rs.25313/- in the scale of Rs.14300-400-18300 (scale of Scientist 'E') as follows:
| Basic Pay | 18300/- |
| Personal Pay (to be absorbed in future increments) | 1950/- |
| NPA @ 25% | 5063/- |
| TOTAL | 25313 |
Actually, the applicant joined DRDO on 28.02.2003.
3. The bone of contention between the parties is that the applicant states that the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1802/2005 was that his rank pay should be protected along with basic pay, stagnation increment and NPA. Though his rank pay was Rs.2000/-, the respondents have not shown that in the new pay fixation and instead reduced it to Rs.1950/- and designated as personal pay."
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the respondents did not pay the full dues in terms of order dated March 29, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and upheld by the High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, late Col. D.P. Attrey was constrained to file contempt petition against the respondents vide C.P. No.432/2009. The Tribunal closed the contempt petition vide order dated October 21, 2009 accepting the reply and calculations given by the respondents. Thereafter, an application was preferred before the Tribunal for revival of the contempt petition on discovering the discrepancies in fixation of pay of late Col. D.P. Attrey. The same was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated July 12, 2010 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant dated February 27, 2010 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Since the respondents failed to pass any speaking order and fix the pay giving rank pay/military service pay and consequently re-fixing the pension, O.A No. 2593/2011 was filed before the Tribunal. On production of order dated April 27, 2012 fixing the pay of late Col. D.P. Attrey, the O.A. was disposed of vide order dated May 03, 2012 giving liberty to challenge the order dated April 27, 2012 by filing separate O.A.
4. Accordingly, O.A. No.3019/2012 was preferred by late Col. D.P. Attrey which was turned down by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated August 03, 2016. It may be noticed that due to death of Col. D.P. Attrey, the present writ petition has been preferred by Smt. Shail Attrey w/o late Col. D.