Regularization entitles project employee to pay scale equivalence as per prior fixation, quashing unauthorized downward revision.

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member(J))

In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:

“To set aside the order No. Admn./Rep/FW/667/13/7682 dated 28.01.2019 issued by the 5^th Respondent downwardly revising the Applicant's pay and consequently direct the Respondents to refix the pay of the Applicant in the pay Scale of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040 with effect from 14.12.1988 as earlier granted by the 4^th Respondent vide Order dated 1.10.2014 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and render justice.”

2. Narrating the facts of the case, the learned counsel for the applicant would contend that he is aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 28.01.2019, where his pay scale has been revised to lower pay scale. In support of his contention, he would contend that after litigating for quite long years, the applicant's services were regularised, by virtue of order, dated 26.04.2013 (Annexure A5), which reads as under:

“Subject: Implementation of the Judgment Order dated the 19^th March, 2012 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras - Regularization of services of 14 Employees engaged in the Field Unit of IDVC Project at Chennai - regarding

In pursuance of the ICMR letter No. 75/46/09-ECD-II dated 23^rd April, 2013 and to implement the Judgment Order dated the 19^th March, 2012 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, Chennai in the matter of G.R. Srinivasan & Ors Vs UOI (WP No 22609/2011), Sh. Pradeep Kumar Rai is appointed as regular Field Worker in the IDVC Project with effect from 14.12.1988 against a temporary post in the erstwhile scale of pay of 950-20-1150- EB-25-1400 (present corresponding Pay of Rs.5200-20200 + GP Rs.1900/-). ”

3. It is not in dispute that, pursuant to the representations, by the order, dated 25.04.2014, the said pay scale was revised, after a gap of almost five years. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed, ignoring the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced hereunder:-

“9. As far as the other judgnant viz., (2007) 2 SCC 332 (Indian Council of Medical Research & Others Vs. K.Rajyalakshmi), relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners are concerned, the respondent therein was appointed on 01.04.1975 and though the post was on year-to-year basis as the grant-in-aid of the Central Government in relation to the said project was on that basis, yet, the project continued for a long time. Therefore, the respondent therein sought for regularization of her services, which was rejected. She approached this court and this court gave a direction to regularize her services with retrospective effect. In the Special Leave Petition filed by the Indian Council of Medical Health before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, while setting aside the order passed by the High Court directing regularization of the services of the respondent therein, held that the project, being on year-to- year basis, the post cannot be sanctioned on a regular basis and that the "Doctrine of Fairness" cannot be invoked in that context. In this case, admittedly, the respondents were appointed between the years 1986 and 1990 and they have submitted several representations to the petitioners seeking regularization of their services. After utilising their services for several years, the petitioners have rejected their representations by order dated 18.12.2002. Thereafter, the petitioners have given assurance to the respondents that their services would be regularized. The petitioners have also conducted various meetin