COURT No.2 ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI 26. OA 2822/2023 Brig VJ.S. Birdi vaiesa Applicant VERSUS Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. S.S.Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rajan Khosla, Advocate CORAM HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA, MEMBER (J) HON’BLE REAR ADMIRAL DHIREN VIG, MEMBER (A) ORDER 20.09.2023 The present OA has been filed under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 by the applicant being aggrieved by the incorrect pay-fixation of his pay in the 6' Central Pay Commission (CPC) resulting in continuous financial loss and disadvantage. The applicant has made the following prayers: “(a) Call for the records wherein the respondents have fixed the pay of the applicant in the 6% CPC in the Rank of Maj w.e.f 01.01.2006 and thereafter despite repeated directions, the respondents have not rectified the fixation of the pay of the applicant in the Rank of Lt.Col. which was more beneticial to him at the time of his transition from 5* to 6% CPC and thereafter quash the same. (b) Issue further direction to the respondents to re-fix the pay of the applicant in the 6% CPC from the date of promotion as Lt. Col on 10.12.2007 in 6 CPC in a manner that is more beneficial to the applicant with further direction to re-fix the pay of the applicant on farther promotion to the Rank of Col as well as Brig as well as on the 7 CPC based on OA 2822/2023 — Brig V,J.S. Birdi Page 1 of 7such fixation of pay in a more beneficial manner in the Rank of Lt.Col. (c) Direct the respondents to pay the difference of pay after all necessary adjustments as arrears on all such fixation with 4 penal interest @18% in a time bound manner. (@) Pass any other order/orders as deemed appropriate hy this Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. Notice of the OA was issued to the respondents which is accepted on their behalf. 8, The applicant was commissioned in the Indian Army on 10.12.1994 and he was promoted to the Rank of Lt Col on 10.12.2007 while the recommendations of the 6 CPC were yet to be finalized. Finally, the recommendations of the 6" CPC were accepted on 11.10.2008 and implemented by the Government of India w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in terms of SAI 02/8/2008 in the case of officers. It is the case of the applicant that the fixation of pay was not done as was beneficial to the applicant from the date of promotion and the pay of the applicant was fixed for lack of option w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in the rank of Maj as the same was based on exercise of option for which the time limit was stipulated-but due to lack of instructions, he was unable to exercise option within time and was denied the benefit of the fixation of pay in the 6" CPC from the date of promotion which was more beneficial to the applicant and thus his pay was fixed as a Maj w.e.f. 01.01.2006, instead of from the date of promotion to the Rank of Lt. Colonel, i.e., from 10.12.2007 which was more beneficial to the = OA 2822/2028 — Brig VJ.8. Bitdt Page 2 of 7applicant, which resulted in him receiving lesser pay than his batch mates and even his juniors. The applicant further submits that the respondents on 21.12.2010 amended the SAI 2/8/2008 and Para 6(d) which reads to the effect: “the option once exercised shall be final” was substituted by the following: “411 Officers...can revise their option upto 31.03.2011 if the option is more beneficial to ther” and that the respondents again in terms of order dated 11.12.2013 modified the time limit for re-exercise of option till 30.06.2011 but did not provide the fresh opportunity to revise the option. 4. The applicant further submits that the respondents did not accept the request of the applicant for fixation of his pay based on the option to ensure that more beneficial pay scale is given to the affected persons on the ground that the same could not be done after 30.06.2011. The applicant submits that some of the affected persons filed the OA