Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2240
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, J, Dr. Sumeet Jerath, A
Shailendra Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Rdso – Respondent
O.A./2138/2024
Mr. Ashim Shridhar with Ms. Radhika Gupta, Mr. Rajeev Kumar
The court established that distinctions in pay protection based on recruitment methods are arbitrary, affirming the applicant's entitlement to pay protection as a direct recruit.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Pay Protection Guidelines - The applicant challenged the rejection of his request for pay protection based on the last pay drawn in PSU upon joining IRSME, citing the Office Memorandum dated 10.07.1998 which restricts pay protection to selections made through interviews. The court found that the applicant met the criteria for pay protection as he was a direct recruit and had completed his probation. (Paras 2, 3, 11, 13)
(B) Judicial Precedents - The court referenced previous judgments, including Sanjog Kapoor vs. Union of India, which held that distinctions made in pay protection based on recruitment methods were arbitrary and discriminatory. (Paras 3, 11)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, previously employed by NTPC Limited, sought pay protection upon joining IRSME, which was denied based on the interpretation of the Office Memorandum regarding recruitment methods.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to grant pay protection and all consequential benefits within three months.
Issues: The main issues included the applicability of the Office Memorandum and whether the applicant was entitled to pay protection based on his recruitment method.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant was entitled to pay protection as he was a direct recruit and the distinction made by the Office Memorandum was arbitrary.
Result: The impugned order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to grant pay protection.
Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
a. Call for the records connected with the case.
b. Quash the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 issued by the Respondent No.1-2 rejecting the request/representation of the Applicant for according benefit of the protection of the last pay drawn by the Applicant in PSU to IRSME.
c. Issue necessary time bound Directions to' the Respondent No.1-2 directing the benefit of protection of the last pay drawn by the applicant from the PSU to IRSME by reckoning the last pay drawn by the Applicant from NTPC Limited.
d. Direct the Respondents to Pay to the Applicant all arrears of basic pay, salary, and any other benefit accruing to the Applicant from the date of his joining IRSME along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date on which such payment was due.
e. Direct the Respondents to count the Applicant's past service rendered in NTPC Limited for the purpose of all service benefits including pension in the Central Government Service.
f. Pass any other order this Honorable Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present matter the applicant is challenging the letter dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure A1) issued by the respondents vide which the representation of the applicant has been rejected and the Pay Protection to the applicant as per Pay Protection Guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training has been denied. The letter dated 14.03.2024 reads as under:
Government of India-Ministry of Railways Research, Design & Standard Organisation Manak Nagar, lucknow File No. AEP-5833 Dt.l4 .03.2024 Sub : Application requesting grant of pay protection- a case of Shri Shailendra Kumar Sharma, Director/Wagon/RDSO Ref: Your application dt. 23.11.2023 & 29.02.2024 You have represented vide your application dated 23.11.2023 & 29.02.2024 regarding pay protection in lieu of your service that you have rendered with NTPC Ltd.
In this context it is informed that your case cannot be considered in the light of RBE 16/200 I which states that “It is reiterated that the benefit of pay protection is admissible only when the appointment is made through an interview. No protection of pay is admissible in case of appointment is made through an open competitive examination as stipulated in DOPT's OM No. 12/1/96-Estt(Pay)(l) dt. 10.07.1998. Wherever such protection is to be given, UPSC will indicate in its recommendation letter that pay of such candidate should be fixed as per guidelines laid in the above quoted letter."Copy of Rly Board letter is enclosed for your ready reference.
DA : As above (Yamini Ranjan Tiwari) Dir./Admin-III
3. The rejection of the case of the applicant is on the premises of an Office Memorandum dated 10.07.1998 as prevalent at the time of induction of the applicant in the services. The said OM dated 10.07.1998 came for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court in the matter of Sanjog Kapoor vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others 2007 (6) SLR 76 dated 20.04.2007. The relevant para reads as under:
“5. It is the petitioner's submission that the Tribunal did not go into the challenge to the OM dated 10.7.1998 despite a review application being filed. It refused to interfere with an interpretation that the OM of 1998 was meant to clarify the OM of 1989. According to OM of 1998, the Government grants benefit of pay protection only if selection from PSUs etc is made through interview and not through an open competitive examination. Petitioner contended that by no stretch of imagination can the OM of 1998 be deemed as a Clarificatory OM as it did not make any distinction between 'selection' through interview and 'selection' through open competitive examination of which 'interview' is an essential component. Had it be
