Upon promotion, an employee's salary must be fixed based on their last drawn substantive pay. Statutory pay protection principles prohibit the arbitrary deduction of service-related incentives, such as advance increments earned through professional examinations, as these do not constitute 'special pay' associated with arduous duties or specific working conditions.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Petitioner seeks quashing of Office Order No. 22/Memo No. 452 dated 12.04.2014 (Annexure-6). By this order, three advance increments previously granted to him were deducted while fixing his pay on the promoted post. He claims that this action has resulted in a pay anomaly and is in contravention of Rule 78(a)(i) of the Bihar/ JHARKHAND SERVICE CODE .

Background Facts:

3. The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Messenger by an Office Order dated 22.01.1996 under the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board. Subsequently, he was appointed as a Junior Accounts Clerk (JAC) by another office order dated 27.07.2007 issued by the Director (Personnel), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi.

The Electricity Board introduced a scheme to incentivize employees who cleared the Departmental Examination with three advance increments in the existing scale. The Petitioner appeared for and cleared the Departmental Examination held on 20.05.2012 and was declared successful in the result published in the Office Order dated 30.05.2012.

As a result of his passing the departmental examination, the Petitioner was granted three advance increments by Office Order No. 1171 dated 19.06.2012. Soon thereafter, he was promoted from the post of Junior Accounts Clerk (JAC) to the post of Accounts Assistant (AA) by another Office Order No. 2459 dated 30.12.2013. The Petitioner’s name appears at Serial No. 17 of this office order by which promotion was granted to employees posted as Junior Accounts Clerk (JAC) to the next higher post of Accounts Assistant (AA). The natural consequence of promotion is the grant of the pay scale of the promoted post with the applicable Grade Pay. However, while fixing the pay of this Petitioner, the Respondents granted one increment but deducted the three advance increments, which becomes evident from the pay fixation chart dated 12.04.2014 (Annexure 6) to the Writ Petition.

It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that he was given three advance increments of Rs. 370 + 380 + 390 = 1140, which were added to his pay prior to his promotion to the post of Accounts Assistant. His pay was, therefore, Rs. 13,180 (pre-revised), which was revised to Rs. 13,780 in the revised scale, as is apparent from the pay fixation chart.

Thereafter, the Petitioner was given two annual increments for the years 2012 and 2013, and his revised pay prior to promotion was Rs. 14,630/-. However, upon being promoted, the Respondents deducted the three advance increments and reduced his pay to Rs. 13,340/-. The Respondents then gave one increment @ Rs. 300 and the difference of Grade Pay of Rs. 1,200/- making the total pay of this Petitioner as Rs. 14,940/-.

The Petitioner, however, is aggrieved by such pay fixation as the grant of one increment and the difference of Grade Pay should have been computed on Rs. 14,630/-, which was substantive pay drawn by him prior to promotion. The grant of increment and difference of Grade Pay on the reduced pay of Rs. 13,340/-, computed by deducting the three advance increments, violates the provisions of Rule 78(a)(i) of the JHARKHAND SERVICE CODE .Ld. Counsel also relies on the decision in the case of Ishwari Prasad Mandal vs. State of Jharkhand (W.P.S. No. 6166 of 2008), which covers his case squarely. This decision has been affirmed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 315 of 2013, and the S.L.P (C) 16507/2015 preferred by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board was also dismissed.

He further submits that the instant case is also covered by the decision in W.P. (S) No. 1004 of 2018; Shambhu Nath Prasad vs