Pay protection under Rule 22B FR mandatory on promotion; prevents salary reduction; 10 years' service qualifies Selection Grade pension.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent and perused the records.

2. The brief case of the petitioner is that he had joined service as Secondary Grade Assistant on 06.08.1984; that he was promoted to the post of Elementary School Headmaster on 16.06.2003; that thereafter as B.T Grade Middle School Headmaster on 11.07.2005; that while working as B.T. Grade Middle School Headmaster, he was transferred as Assistant Elementary Education Officer on 21.11.2006 which is equivalent to B.T. Grade Middle School Headmaster; and that he had retired from service on 31.10.2016.

3. The petitioner further contends that on being promoted to the post of B.T. Grade Middle School Headmaster with effect from 11.07.2005, he had opted to continue his earlier lower category i.e., Selection Grade Elementary School Headmaster pay scale, as the scale of pay in the promotional post i.e., ordinary grade B.T Grade Middle School Headmaster was lesser than the lower post pay scale held by him.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that as on 01.01.2006, in the initial 6^th Pay Commission revision proposal, there was no selection grade or special grade; that even then he had opted to continue his lower post pay scale as applicable to Elementary School Headmaster; that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (PC) Department, dated 01.06.2009, had revised the pay scale of higher post B.T. Grade Middle School Headmaster (Ordinary Grade), which was lesser than the lower post of Selection Grade Elementary School Headmaster pay scale; that his pay scale was fixed on the basis of the Selection Grade Primary School Headmaster pay scale, for which he had opted; and that he had never opted to fix the scale of Middle School Headmaster (Ordinary Grade).

5. The Petitioner further contends that since, he opted to remain in the pay scale as applicable to the Selection Grade Primary School Headmaster, the respondents cannot and could not have applied the pay scale of Middle School Headmaster (Ordinary Grade), resulting in reduction of pay to the petitioner.

6. The petitioner also contended that based on his last drawn pay, i.e., Selection Grade Primary School Headmaster, pension proposal was prepared and forwarded by the respondents 1 to 4 to the 5^th respondent for sanction of pension on 04.11.2016 as he had retired from service on 31.10.2016; that the 5^th respondent by the impugned order dated 07.12.2016 while returning service book and pension proposal, had directed the 4^th respondent to send pension proposal again by considering the Grade Pay of Rs.4,700/- only and not Grade pay of Rs.5400/- as considered while preparing the pension proposal; that since, the petitioner was holding the post of Headmaster Middle School (Ordinary Grade) as on 01.01.2006, he should be granted time scale as applicable to Headmaster Middle School (Ordinary Grade) as per G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (PC) Department, dated 01.06.2009.

7. The petitioner contends that the claim of the 5^th respondent of he holding the post of Headmaster Middle School (Ordinary Grade) as on 01.01.2016 in order to reject the Grade pay payable to him in Selection Grade as applicable to Primary School Headmaster, is without considering the fact of he having opted to continue in lower category, i.e., Selection Grade Elementary School Headmaster pay scale at the time when he was promoted as B.T. Grade Middle School Headmaster on 11.07.2005.

8. It is the further case of