Administrative decisions regarding retirement should not undermine entitlements to increments when principles of similar cases affirm such rights.

ORDER

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

The applicant was promoted as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax with effect from 1.1.2006. He exercised option for fixation of pay on promotion with effect from 1.5.2006. By Annexure A3 OM dated 19.3.2012 the next increment of the applicant was due on 1.7.2006 (Annexure A1). His pay was refixed with an additional increment and was passed by the competent authority as Annexure A2. He was promoted as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax with effect from 31.3.2011 on ad hoc basis. However, his regular increment due on 1.7.2011 was not authorized but he was granted increment in the post of JCIT only on 1.7.2012. In the order issued in 2013 regularizing ad hoc promotion as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, applicant’s name was not included, since he had retired from service on 31.11.2012.

2. In the meanwhile, the 5^th respondent raised an objection to Annexure A2 fixation by which the benefits of pay enhancement was granted to him including an additional increment as per Annexure A1 OM was held to be irregular on the ground that the OM dated 19.3.2012 would come to the help of the applicant only if an option was exercised by the applicant to continue in the existing scale of pay till 1.7.2006 and that it was beneficial to him. Accordingly, the applicant exercised an option on 18.10.2016 to continue in the existing pay till the date of his next increment on 1.7.2006. Annexure A3 is the option. However, the applicant was informed by Annexure A4 that the belated option exercised by him under FR 22 (1)(a)(1) on 18.10.2016 was to be got approved from the DoP&T vide OM dated 25.2.2003. Thereafter, he made several representations requesting to issue directions to release increment due on 1.7.2011. Ultimately by Annexure A12 order dated 7.1.2019 his representation was disposed of rejecting the applicant’s claim. A grievance petition was submitted thereafter before the 4^th respondent which was rejected by Annexure A14.

3. Aggrieved by the above the applicant has approached this Tribunal challenging Annexures A12 and A14 and seek the following reliefs:

“a) call for the records leading to Annexure A12 & A14 orders passed by the 4^th respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary, perverse and against the orders Annexure(s) A1 & CCS (Revised Pay Rules) 2008 in the circumstances of the case; and

b) declare that the applicant is entitled for fixation of pay on promotion as DCIT w.e.f. 1.1.2006 aft er granting the normal increment due on 1.5.2006 in the lower post in the pre-revised scale as done in Annexure A2, in accordance with Annexure A1; and

c) declare that the applicant is entitled for the next increment in the revised scale w.e.f. 1.7.2006.

d) direct the 4^th respondent to refix the pay of the applicant by granting one increment in the lower post of ACIT in the pre-revised scale on 1.1.2006 (due on 1.5.2006), then by fixing his pay in the revised scale of ACIT w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and fixing his pay in the revised scale of DCIT on 1.1.2006 consequent on the implementation of the recommendations of the 6^th CPC.

e) declare that the applicant is entitled for the annual increment on promotion as JCIT w.e.f. 1.7.2011 and to fix his pay accordingly.

f) direct the 4^th respondent to fix the pay of the applicant as per Annexure A1 OM and CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 taking the beneficial interpretation of the rules as envisaged by them.

g) declare that the applicant is eligible for all pecuniary benefits consequent to the fixation of pay as claimed in this Original Application and also direct the respondents to draw and disburse the same including the arrears to the applicant.”

4. The respondents have filed a detailed reply statement sustaining the decision