Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ
G. SOMASEKHAR IPS (RTD)
– Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
OP (CAT) 75 2022
Pay - Service Benefits - Union of India v. T.M.Somarajan & Ors. (Supreme Court) - Section III of Schedule II of IPS (Pay) Rules, Rule 4(5) - The court interpreted the principles established in Somarajan's case, emphasizing that a promoted officer's pay must not fall below their previous scale or equivalent, guiding the decision to remand for re-evaluation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, after being promoted from Kerala Police Service to Indian Police Service, contested the fixation of his pay which was below his prior salary. The Central Administrative Tribunal had upheld the fixation by the Accountant General, leading to further appeal by the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the pay fixation for the petitioner complies with the principles established in prior judgments, particularly regarding the comparability and proportionality of salary post-promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment reaffirmed that the guidelines from T.M.Somarajan case necessitate that an officer's pay should at least match their previous higher scale upon promotion, barring subsequent lawful modifications.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT
C.Jayachandran, J.
Ext.P12 order of the Central Adminstrative Tribunal dated 07.11.2022, rendered in Miscellaneous Application No.484/2020 in O.A. No.923/2014, is under challenge in this Original Petition. The said Original Application was premised on the ground that the petitioner's pay, pursuant to his promotion from the Kerala Police Service to the Indian Police Service, was fixed on a scale lower than the one he was drawing in the State service. As per Ext.P1 Order dated 07.01.2016, the Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled to have his pay fixed in accord with the principle laid down inUnion of India v. T.M.Somarajan & Ors. [ 2010 (1) SCC 129 ] and directed the respondents to fix the pay accordingly, taking into account the amended rules as well. However, the pay scale fixed in compliance of Ext.P1 order was also lower than his previous scale in the State service. The 4th respondent Accountant General contended that his total emoluments is, however, more than what he received in the State service. The Tribunal, vide the impugned Ext.P12 Order, accepted the above compliance of Ext.P1 order, challenging which, the petitioner is before us in the afore captioned Original Petition.
2. The facts:
The following list of days will unfurl the facts which led to the impugned Order:
| Sl. No. | Date | Event | Ext.No. |
| 1 | 16.08.2013 | Petitioner, who was working as Superintendent in the Kerala Police Service (KPS) was promoted to the Indian Police Service (IPS) as per G.O.(Rt) No. 6708/13/GAD dated 16.08.2013. Note: Petitioner's scale of pay in KPS was Rs.42,640 – 55,640 and his pay was Rs.50,840/-. However, upon promotion, his basic pay was fixed at Rs.36,950/-, with a grade pay of Rs.7,600/-. |
| 2 | 22.10.2014 | Petitioner filed O.A.923 of 2014 before the CAT, Ernakulam Bench, claiming: i) The benefit of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India v. T.M.Somarajan & Ors.[2010 (1) SCC 129]; and ii) Fixation of basic pay above Rs.50,840/- w.e.f from 17.08.2013, along with arrears. | Ext.P11 |
| 3 | 07.01.2016 | The CAT, Ernakulam allowed Ext.P11 O.A, along with connected matters, holding that the principle laid down in Somarajan (supra) is applicable to the promoted applicants, including the petitioner and directing the respondents to fix the pay accordingly, taking into account the amendments to the IPS/IFS (Pay) Rules, 2007. | Annexure MA3 in Ext.P1 |
| 4 | 31.05.2018 | The petitioner retired from service. | Decipherable from Annexure- M.A.10 in Ext.P4 |
| 5 | 26.06.2019 OP (CAT) No. 285/2016 preferred by the respondent State was dismissed by the High Court, however, clarifying as under: “we clarify that the 1st respondent – G.Somasekhar – is not entitled to any more benefits than that is granted in Union of India v. T.M.Somarajan & Ors.[2010 (1) SCC 129]”. | Annexure M.A.2 in Ext.P2 | |
| 6 | 10.01.2020 | The petitioner filed M.A No. 38/2020 in O.A 923/2014 alleging non-compliance of Annexure-MA3 order of CAT dated 07.01.2016 and seeking implementation of the same, together with interest @ Rs.12% per annum on the arrears. | Ext.P2 |
| 7 | 30.07.2020 The Government issued G.O.(Rt) No.2394/2020/GAD ordering re- fixation of the initial pay of the petitioner as per the principles laid down in T.M.Somarajan (supra) and disbursal of all consequential benefits to the applicants, including arrears, for which purpose, the Accountant General was directed to issue revised pay slip. | Annexure M.A.4 in Ext.P1 |
| 8 | 20.08.2020 The CAT, Ernakulam disposed of Ext.P2 M.A, taking stock of Annexure-M.A.4 G.O, however, reserving permission to the applicant to approach the Tribunal again, if so advised. | Ext.P3 | |
| 9 | 21.08.2020 The Accountant | ||
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
