The court reaffirmed that pay fixation for re-employed ex-Army personnel must adhere to regulations effective at their time of re-employment, rejecting claims beyond the final emoluments drawn by them.

JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J. (Oral)--This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) issue an appropriate Writ in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari or any other Resources appropriate Writ quashing the order dated 5.11.2009 passed by the General Manager, Human Resources Development Division, New Delhi of the Respondent-Bank;

(b) issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondent to re-fix the pay of the Petitioner by including an increment equivalent to 24 years of service (including pre-commissioned training period) of the Petitioner in the Army with effect from 14.8.89 in accordance with Circular No. 30/91 dated 14.8.91 issued by the Respondent-Bank;"

2. The genesis of the dispute relates to the claim of the petitioner for his fitment in an appropriate scale of pay under the respondent Bank in which he came to be employed after serving in the Armed Forces. The dispute had travelled earlier to this Court with the petitioner instituting W.P.(C) 2932/2005 wherein the petitioner had contended that the Bank had incorrectly fixed the initial pay of the petitioner consequent to re-employment. The aforesaid writ petition came to be dismissed by the Court both on merits as well as on the ground of delay and laches.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement, the petitioner preferred LPA No.474/2008 which came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of the Court on 25 August 2009. Since that order would have some bearing on the submissions which have been addressed before this Court, the same is being extracted hereinbelow:-

"Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 21st May, 2008 whereby appellant-petitioners writ petition impugning fixation of his pay on re-employment with respondent-Bank after his retirement from Army was dismissed.

Learned counsel for appellant-petitioner submits that learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the effect of Circular bearing No. 30/91 dated 14th August, 1991 which provided that persons commissioned in the Armed Forces between 1st November, 1962 to 10th January, 1968 are to be provided an increment equal to the years of service in the army.

However, learned counsel for respondent-Bank submits that the aforesaid Circular was applicable only in the cases of pay fixation of Ex-Emergency Commissioned Officers/Short Services Commissioned Officers who are re-employed in the respondent-Bank after release from the Army. He submitted that these instructions are not applicable in the case of appellant-petitioner who had joined the Army through NDA and is an Officer pensioner.

We have perused the aforesaid Circular dated 14th August, 1991 and we are of the view that it applies to all Commissioned Officers irrespective of the fact that whether they joined the Army through NDA or otherwise.

Consequently, we direct respondent-Bank to consider afresh the representation of appellant-petitioner with regard to fixation of his pay. The said representation shall be disposed of within eight weeks from the date of its receipt.

Accordingly, present appeal is disposed of in the above terms."

4. As is evident from a reading of the judgement rendered on the LPA, the Court essentially took into consideration the submission of the petitioner that the learned Judge while proceeding to dismiss the writ petition had failed to take into account the provisions of the Circular dated 14 August 1991 which had provided for the grant of increments equal to the numbers of years of service rendered in the Armed Forces to be taken into consideration while fixing initial pay. The Court on perusal of the aforesaid Circular proceeded to reject the submission addressed on behalf of the Bank that it would stand restricted in its application to Ex-Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Services Commissioned Officers only. The Court held that the Circular of 14 August 1991 would apply to all Commissioned Officers irrespective of whether t