Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1531
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr.JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, JJ
G Somasekhar – Appellant
Versus
M/o Home Affairs – Respondent
M.A./484/2020
Mr.Jayadhar.V & Mr.Nirmalan.K, Mr.N.Anilkumar, SPC & Mr.Baijuraj.G., Sr.GP
Pay fixation upon induction into the Indian Police Service must not result in a reduction of salary, as established by the Supreme Court in T.M.Somarajan's case.
Headnote:(A) IPS (Pay) Rules, 2007 - Section 2(aa) - Pay fixation - The applicant, a Superintendent of Police, challenged the reduction of his pay upon induction into the Indian Police Service, arguing it violated the Supreme Court's ruling in T.M.Somarajan's case (2010 1 SCC 129) which states that pay should not be reduced upon such induction. The Tribunal found that the applicant's pay was improperly fixed below his previous salary, failing to comply with the established legal principles. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Compliance with Court Orders - The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for compliance with judicial orders regarding pay fixation, highlighting systemic issues in the process. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was inducted into the Indian Police Service on 17.08.2013, with a prior basic pay of Rs.50840/-. His pay was refixed at Rs.44550/-, which was less than his previous salary. The applicant retired on 31.05.2018 and faced multiple litigations regarding his pay fixation.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal directed the respondents to refix the applicant's pay in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling and to pay the consequential difference as arrears with interest.
Issues: The main issues included whether the pay fixation complied with the Supreme Court's ruling and the adequacy of the pay fixed compared to the applicant's previous salary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the pay fixation must protect the applicant's previous salary and comply with the Supreme Court's directive, emphasizing the need for uniformity in pay fixation practices.
Result: The respondents were directed to refix the pay and pay arrears with interest.
ORDER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Heard the matter in extenso. Briefly stated the facts are as under :
The applicant while working as Superintendent of Police in the Kerala Police Service was inducted into the Indian Police Service on 17.08.2013. At the time of induction he was drawing Basic Pay at Rs.50840/- + other allowances in the State pattern scale of pay Rs.42640- 55640, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-1. On induction to Indian Police Service his pay was refixed in the Central pay pattern at a Basic Pay Rs.44550/- (Pay Rs.36950/- + Grade Pay Rs.7600/-) + other allowances in the 6th CPC Pay Band-3 Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay Rs.7600/- + other allowances, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-3. As per IPS (Pay) Rules, 2007 Section 2(aa) Basic Pay means “the pay fixed at the stage in the suitable PB + GP corresponding to that PB”. It is submitted that the Basic Pay fixed at Rs.44550/- (Rs.36950/- + Grade Pay Rs.7600/-) to the applicant was Rs.6290/- less than the Basic Pay Rs.50840/-, which he had drawn in the Kerala Police Service. This was challenged in this O.A on the grounds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's dictum laid down in T.M.Somarajan's case (2010 1 SCC 129) was not followed while fixing his pay wherein it has been held that “in our opinion after entering into the IPS Cadre from the State Cadre Service, the pay of such an officer should not be reduced.” Initially an order was passed in this O.A directing that the pay of the applicant be fixed above Rs.50840/- ie., basic pay fixed at the stage in the suitable PB + GP corresponding to that PB plus other allowances applicable in IPS service. This was challenged in O.P.(CAT) No.285/2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the same was dismissed specifically clarifying that “we clarify that the 1st respondent – G.Somasekhar – is not entitled to any more benefits than that is granted in Union of India vs. T.M.Somarajan & Ors., 2010 (1) SCC 129.” Against this judgment no SLP was filed and thus this Tribunal's order attained finality. In the meanwhile the applicant retired from service on 31.05.2018. Since the respondents did not comply with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court upholding the order of this Tribunal, M.A.No.38/2020 for implementation was filed wherein it had been submitted by the 4th respondent that they have decided to refix the pay of the applicant as per the dictum laid down in Somarajan's case. Accordingly the M.A was closed. Subsequently the 4th respondent issued pay slip dated 21.08.2020 fixing pay at Rs.44700 + Grade Pay Rs.7600/- which is equal to Rs.53300/-. However, pay slip did not clarify in which PB the pay was fixed. If that fixation is done in PB-3 Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay Rs.7600/- then the pay Rs.44700/- is not a stage in that PB and if that fixation is done in PB-4 Rs.37400-67000 having Grade Pay Rs.8700/- then the Grade Pay fixed should have been Rs.8700/- in place of Rs.7600/-. Later, without amending the pay slip the 4th respondent, AG, suo motu issued another pay slip dated 26.08.2020 produced as Annexure MA-7 fixing his basic pay at Rs.46700/- ie. Pay Rs.39100/- taken in the highest stage in PB3 + Grade Pay Rs.7600/-. This fixation apparently neither complies with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court nor the order of this Tribunal as the basic pay fixed therein was less than Rs.50840/- which resulted in filing of the M.A.No.484/2020. During the pendency of this M.A the 2nd respondent issued a new sanction order Annexure MA-11 dated 26.03.2021 in which the 2nd respondent State sanctioned a pay fixation to the applicant in PB-4 for full compliance of the order in the O.A and directed the 4th respondent to fix the pay of the applicant in line with the dictum laid in Somarajan's case. The relevant portion of the Annexure MA-11 order is para 2 which is reproduced below :
“ Since the pay drawn by Shri.Somasekhar IPS (Retired) in the State scale exceeded the maximum of the pay band of Junior
