IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that pay fixation for Short Service Commissioned Officers must adhere to the specific circular applicable to their status, distinguishing it from that of Ex-Service men.

JUDGMENT :

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 27.11.2019 passed in W.P.No.22846 of 2004.

The appellants herein are the respondents 2 and 3 before the Writ Court. The Writ petitioners are arrayed as the respondents 1 and 2 herein. The first respondent in the writ petition is arrayed as the 3rd respondent in the Writ Appeal.

2. The intra-Court appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.11.2019 granting the relief as prayed for by setting aside the impugned pay fixation dated 19.06.2004.

3. For convenience sake the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Writ Court.

4. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the instant intra-Court appeal is that; the writ petitioners admittedly are the Short Service Commissioned Officers released from Army Service. After their Army service, they joined the respondent-Bank as the Security Officers in Junior Management Grade. They were appointed in the Bank with a scale of pay of Rs.700-4-900-5-1100-1800. However, their last pay drawn in the Army was Rs.1,200/-. It appears that in pursuance of the representation given by the petitioners, their pay were revised by protecting their last drawn pay of Army qua Rs.1,200/-. The above fixation was made based upon the Bank Circular No.104 dated 12.12.1984.

5. However, within a short span of time, the respondent-Bank issued a Staff Circular dated 30.09.1985 thereby reduced the pay fixation from Rs.1200/- to Rs.900/- with effect from 28.03.1983. Such reduction was challenged through the first round of litigation, and as per the order made in the earlier Writ Appeal in WA.No.971 of 2006, these petitioners were given opportunity to explain as to why the pay should not be reduced.

6. After hearing the petitioners, the respondents 2 and 3 vide order dated 19.06.2004 have again confirmed their earlier stand and reduced their basic pay from Rs.1,200/- to Rs.900/-, which order was under challenge in the impugned writ petition.

7. The Writ Court, by relying upon the Bank Staff Circular No.104 dated 12.12.1984 has set aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2004 and directed to fix the pay at Rs.1200/-. The said order of the learned Single Judge is under challenge in the instant Writ Appeal

8. Mr.S.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/respondents 2 and 3 would contend that, the writ petitioners released from Army as Short Service Commissioned Officers. However, the writ Court has relied upon the circular dated 12.12.1984 which is applicable to the Ex.Army man/Permanent Commissioned Army man. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the Government has directed the Bank to fix two different types of pays. One for Ex.Service Army man, and another for Short Service Commission Army man.

9. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.Ravindran, that the protection of pay as claimed by the writ petitioners/respondents 1 and 2 is applicable only to the Ex-Service man. Whereas, the petitioners are admittedly Short Service Commissioned Army men. Therefore, the Circular, which was wrongly relied by the Bank cannot be taken as advantage by the respondents. Thus, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that after came to know about their inadvertent mistakes they have modified the pay to the petitioners in accordance with the applicable Circulars. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and liable to be interfered with.

10. Per contra, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 would vehemently contend that the order of the learned Single Judge is well merited, and that the learned Single Judge has followed the correct circulars. Apart from that, it is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2/writ petitioners