The court affirmed that pay refixation must comply with Official Memorandum standards, ensuring entitled grade pay is upheld for employees in the specified scale.

Basant Balaji J., The Petitioners are the Respondents in O.A.No.180/00653 of 2015 on the files of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam bench and the Respondent was the Applicant therein. The O.A. was filed by the Respondent for the following reliefs:

“I) Call for the records leading to Annexure A6, A8 and A9 and set aside them.

11) Declare that the re-fixation of the pay of the applicant in Annexure A6 order is illegal.

III) Direct the respondents to grant the second financial up-

gradation benefit to the applicant under the MACP Scheme in the pay band and grade pay of the promotional post duly taking into account the pay drawn by the applicant as per Annexure A5.

IV) Direct the respondents to re-fix the pay and pensionary benefits of the applicant on the basis of the pay arrived in relief No.III.

V ) Award costs of and incidental to this application.

VI) Grant such other relief, which this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The Respondent began his career as an ad hoc Bosun at the Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical and Engineering Training (CIFNET), Madras, on 1 February 1985. His service was later regularized on 19 January 1987. He was then transferred to the Integrated Fisheries Project (IFP), Kochi, as a Bosun on

8 June 1995. A subsequent reorganisation of the IFP led to his transfer to the Fishery Survey of India (FSI) on 19 May 2005.

3. The Respondent received his first financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme with effect from 9 August 1999. This moved him to the pay scale of ₹6500 - 200 -10500, as per Ext.P1 (Annex.A2) dated 14 February 2000. Following the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission, the Respondent was granted the Revised Pay Band PB2 of ₹9300 – 34800 with a grade pay of ₹4200/-, documented in Ext.P1 (Annex.A3). A significant development occurred on 13 November 2009, with the issuance of an Official Memorandum, Ext.P1 (Annex.A4). This O.M. stipulated that posts in the pre-revised pay scale of ₹6500-10500 as on 1 January 2006, that had been assigned a grade pay of ₹4200/- in Pay Band PB2, would now be granted a grade pay of ₹4600/-. Relying on this directive, the Respondent was granted the revised pay structure with a grade pay of ₹4600/- effective 1 January 2006.

4. On 9 March 2015, an Office Order, Ext.P1 (Annex.A6), was issued by the 3^rd Petitioner. This order unilaterally refixed the Respondent’s pay back to a grade pay of ₹4200/-, notably without any prior notice or opportunity for him to be heard. The Respondent promptly challenged this refixation with a representation, Ext.P1 (Annex.A8), which was subsequently rejected [Ext.P1 (Annex.A9)], on the ground that the Official Memorandum (Annex.A4) did not apply to him.

5. It is an undisputed fact that, as per Office Order dated 1 August 2000 (Annex.A1), the Respondent’s scale of pay was refixed from ₹5000-150-8000 to ₹6500-200-10500. This means that the Respondent was indeed in the pre- revised scale of ₹6500-10500 before 1 January 2006. The grant of the revised pay structure with a grade pay of ₹4600/- was directly based on the provisions of Annex.A4 Official Memorandum.

To fully understand the legal basis of this matter, the relevant paragraphs from the Official Memorandum (Annex.A4) need to be examined. The same is extracted below:

“3. Consequent upon the Notification of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, Department of Expenditure has received a large number of references from administrative ministries/departments proposing upgradation of the posts which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 1.1.2006 by granting them grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2. The matter has been considered and it has now been decided that the posts which were in the pre- revised scale of Rs.6500