In the re-employment of ex-servicemen, where the entire pension is ignored for pay fixation, the pay is correctly fixed at the minimum of the applicable pay scale of the new post, without requiring protection of the pay drawn in the previous service.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

1. The applicant is aggrieved by improper fixation of his pay and as such he filed the present OA for quashing of the impugned orders of the 1st respondent dated 13.05.2015 and 23.11.2017 and consequently prayed for a direction to the respondents to revise and refix the pay and pensionary benefits and to pass such further or other order as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows: The Applicant was initially appointed in the Indian Army in the year 1984 and served until his retirement upon completion of engagement as a Master Warrant Officer on 31.01.2004. Subsequently, he was re-employed as an Assistant Central Intelligence Officer under the Ex-Servicemen category on 22.01.2009. The Applicant superannuated from the said post on 30.06.2018. It is submitted that at the time of pay fixation upon re-employment under the Ministry of Home Affairs, the applicable Revised Pay Rules and the clarifications issued thereunder were not duly considered, resulting in erroneous and improper fixation of pay. The Applicant submitted representations dated 13.05.2015 and 23.11.2017; however, no response was received. Hence, the present Original Application has been filed.

3. The primary contention of the Applicant is that, prior to passing the impugned order, the Respondents failed to take into account Clause 4(d)(i) of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated 05.04.2010, which clearly stipulates that “the entire pension and pension equivalent of retirement benefits shall be ignored for the purpose of initial pay fixation.” In light of this provision, the Respondents ought to have fixed the Applicant’s pay on the basis of his last drawn pay, which should have been Rs. 23,080/- instead of Rs. 14,880/-. The impugned order is thus vitiated by non-consideration of the applicable rules.

4. It is further submitted that the Respondents failed to appreciate that, at the time of retirement from the Indian Air Force, the Applicant’s last drawn pay was Rs. 8,000/- in the pay scale of Rs. 7,400–10,200 (5th Central Pay Commission). Upon implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the corresponding revised pay ought to have been fixed at Rs. 23,080/-, comprising Rs. 14,880/- in the pay band, Rs. 4,800/- as Grade Pay, Rs. 2,000/- as Military Service Pay, and Rs. 1,400/- as applicable allowance. The failure to fix the pay accordingly reflects arbitrary exercise of power, rendering the impugned order liable to be set aside.

5. The Applicant further submits that it is a well-settled principle of law that there shall be no reduction or adverse alteration in the pay already drawn by an employee upon re-employment. It was therefore incumbent upon the Respondents to fix the Applicant’s initial basic pay at a level not lower than the last pay drawn prior to retirement. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund K. Pai & Others v. Punjab National Bank & Others, reported in 2026 INSC 1033. In view of the above, the Applicant prays for the reliefs sought in the present Original Application.

6. In response, the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Applicant joined service on re-employment with effect from 22.01.2009. By that time, the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission had already been implemented, and the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 had come into force with effect