SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11283

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
K.HARIPAL, J, V.RAMA MATHEW, AM
Shoukkathali A.P, IPS. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.180/00082/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.R.Radhakrishnan Nair
For the Respondents: Anil Prasad, ACGSC
Baijuraj G, Sr.GP

Salary fixation for service members should not result in reductions, following established guidelines on pay protection.

Headnote:The applicants sought pay protection based on the guidelines established in prior tribunal orders and a Supreme Court ruling (Union of India vs. T.M.Somarajan & Ors.). The court found that the respondents' action of issuing an order to keep compliance in abeyance bypassed the tribunal's directions. Thus, the tribunal clarified its earlier order, mandating compliance within three months to prevent unjust salary reductions. The application was upheld in part as per the court's elucidation.

Table of Content
1. pay protection in service fixation (Para 1 , 2)
2. underlining compliance issues with prior orders (Para 3)
3. clarification of previous orders regarding pay fixation (Para 4)

Hon'ble Mrs .V.Rama Mathew, Administrative Member AH Se Paeredth abmobatrhan sides. 2 B02r5i.0e9f.3l0y 1 s2:p49e:a21k+i0n5'g30 'the facts are as under -

The applicants had approached this Tribunal in O.A.Nos.406/2022 and connected matters. The O.As were disposed of by the Tribunal vide Annexure A-2 directing the respondents to consider the grievance of the applicants highlighted in their representations that after inducting into the Indian Police Service (IPS) their salary has been considerably reduced. Thereafter the applicants approached this Tribunal indicating that the order has not been implemented. When the Contempt Petition came up for consideration it was submitted by the Government Pleader that the order has been complied with by passing Annexure A-3 order. Recording the submission the Contempt Petition was closed by Annexure A-4 order on 04.09.2024. Thereafter, the respondents issued impugned order at Annexure A-9 directing to keep in abeyance the operation of Annexure A-3 order. The grievance of the applicant is that this was a calculated measure to bypass the order of this Tribunal and also to get over the Contempt of Court proceeding initiated.

2. On the other hand, the Government Pleader had submitted that an inadvertent error crept in the Annexure A-3 order which was sought to be corrected. Subsequently a fresh Government Order dated 24.03.2025 was issued wherein GAD has stated the manner of pay fixation and pointed out that the drop in the initial pay that was granted to the applicants with effect from 30.09.2021 in IPS was almost compensated with the increment granted to the applicants with effect from 01.07.2022 ie., within nine months from the date of their appointment in IPS. As such the actual drop in pay was only Rs.1611/-. It is only to neutralize this minor drop in the initial pay that the applicants are seeking pay protection by fixing their initial pay in the IPS on the basis of last drawn State Basic Pay of Rs.137700/-. The State Government has further submitted in their reply statement that as as per the extant provisions of IPS (Pay) Rules, the contention of the applicants for fixation of their initial pay in the IPS on the basis of their last drawn State Basic Pay of Rs.137700/- is not tenable. Accordingly, Government has rejected the contention of the applicant vide Government Order dated 24.03.2025. It has also been submitted in the reply statement that the issue of fixation of the initial pay of All India Service Officers promoted from State Service is under consideration of the Government and that the methodology proposed by the respondent is being examined in order to arrive at a lasting solution to the matter and that the orders from the Government in this regard are still awaited. However, subsequent to this it is noted that till date no such comprehensive decision regarding pay fixation has yet been taken.

3. During arguments the applicants have sought implementation of Annexure A-3 Government Order dated 30.08.2024 which was issued in compliance of order in earlier O.A.Nos.406/2022 and connected cases and the refixation of the pay contained therein. It is submitted that subsequent to that no appeal has been filed against the O.A and therefore there was no justification for putting on hold an implementation order based on which this Tribunal has closed the Contempt Petition in this matter. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the relief sought is implmentation of Annexure A-3 Government order based on the Contempt Petition in the earlier O.A which was held in abeyance by Annexure A-9. He also submits that Annexure R-2 (E) which dismisses the representation by order dated 24.03.2025 has not been challenged in the O.A and was not a part of the relief sought nor has the O.A been amended to inc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top