IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld that pay fixation rules apply uniformly and that grievances regarding pay anomalies should be addressed by experts, not through litigation.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents.

2. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer:

“In the premises it is most humbly prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the impugned Pay Slip dated 19/8/2022 (Annexure-4) reducing the basic pay of the Petitioner from Rs.57,400/- p.m. to Rs.55,200/- p.m. alongwith the impugned Letter No. G.12014/14/2016FIN(PRU) dt.17/2/2022 (Annexure-6), impugned Letter No. G.12014/14/2016-FIN(PRU) dt.9/3/2022 (Annexure-8) and the impugned Letter No. G.12014/14/2016-FIN(PRU) dt.13/4/2022 (Annexure-10) shall not be set aside and quashed and after hearing the parties be further pleased to make the rule absolute by protecting the basic pay of Rs.57,400/- p.m. of the Petitioner in accordance with his Last Pay Certificate (Annexure-3) and directing the Respondents to re-fix the basic pay of the Petitioner on his promotion to the rank of Inspector on 9/5/2022 and to pass any other orders as your Lordships' may deem fit and proper.”

3. The basic grievance of the petitioner, who is currently working as Inspector of Police under the Government of Mizoram is that he on being promoted to the said post, his Basic Pay has been reduced to Rs. 55,200/- while he was getting a Basic Pay of Rs. 57,400/- in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police before his promotion. According to the State respondents, there was a mistake committed in the fixation of his pay in the lower post while applying the Mizoram (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 (Revision of Pay Rules, 2010). Therefore, on his promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, the same was rectified and the petitioner cannot have any grievance since the Revision of Pay Rules, 2010 is equally applicable to all Government Servants.

4. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel submits that the State respondents have applied Table-2 of Rule 15 of the Revision of Pay Rules, 2010 in respect of direct recruits while Rule 13 of the same Rules is applied for promotees. He submits that Table-2 of Rule 15 provides for readymade calculation of Grade Pay and pay in the Pay Band while Rule 13 requires some calculation as provided in the said Rule. He submits that at the time of promotion of the petitioner to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police on 26.09.2008, his pay as per Rule 13 of the Revision of Pay Rules, 2010 compared to the pay of directly recruited Sub-Inspectors as per Table-2 of Rule 15 was much lower. Due to this, the then DDA in the Police Headquarters in consultation with the respondent No. 5 had fixed the Pay Band of the petitioner in PB-2 (9,300 -34,800) by fixing his pay as GP 4400 + 10520 = 14920 in accordance with Table-2 of Rule 15 of the Revision of Pay Rules, 2010. That the petitioner has been enjoying the said Pay Band of Scale of Pay since then till it was revised by giving him a lower Basic Pay on his promotion to the post of Inspector of Police. He submits that the same was also done without issuance of any prior notice to the petitioner and thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

5. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel submits that a similar case arose for consideration by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 3217/2014 (Somvir Rana & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.). The substantive question before the Tribunal was whether the direct recruits who have been appointed prior to 01.01.2006 can be placed at a lower Pay Scale than those direct recruits who were appointed after 01.01.2006. The Tribunal concluded that the respondents should ensure that the pay of no incumbent in the post of PST, TGT and PGT appointed prior to 01.01.2006 is fixed lower than the pay could be drawn by the fresh appointee of the post as on 01.01.2006.