Selection Grade--I (HSG~I) by order dated is/4/1996 pay was fixed in the scale of Rs.2000 ~ 3200 by * £9/4/1996 as per FR22-I (a)_(:)r.,,_w.e.£;"'"2sj3'/'1993_.,_V Subsequently, the Director of Accou-nts::"(§?.ostal)0 'cl:arifie:d--..yifi1.i_: the year 1999, that fixation ofpayyyof FR.22wI (a)(1') was not correct was reduced Wei. 1/ 9/ 200 I 'made for recovery at Rs.38,134/W in.' monthly]_inst'aiinj.e'nt...' 1,000/W per month. The not to recover the vyasttrejected. Hence, the 1*esponde:nt"fvi1:ed.f<;.rigi:§g4nI the Tribunal. 4. tdtityyvast the authorities before the Tribunal that prior to the implementation of the irecyonirnehfidatdion of Pay Commission, the pay scales of were different but subsequent to the iinplerrientiatiofndof the recommendation w.e.f. 1/1/1996, the scales' were identical i.e., Rs.6500 -- 200-10500 and Vtthyerefoie, the respondent was not entitled to pay under
(a) (1) wet’. 1/1/.1993 and that the applicants
~ i:.V’pI’Oi’I1OJ[iOI1 became a transfer w.e.f. 1/1/1996. Hence. the
recovery made was sought to be iustified. ’53- ,»~
Niiri 7 _
applied by the Division Bench of this Court in the–__Writ
petitions disposed of on 13/10/2003, which was 3..
wrong Stepping up of pay being granted ”
correction of the same. ~
“In the case. when the responderit twtashproinoted fr.oi’1i..
the post of ASRM to HSG~I’VO_IuV 16;4.1996.V’V:’itsve_V.yr .fwas
considered as promotional posthinvotvingtbbhiqher and
responsibilities and a _attached to the
post of HSGJ. Consequently when pay in regard to
the promotionat fixed: with”effecti;rom 16.-4.1996, the
benefit of ti) to the petitioner. The
Fifth Payp__Co’mrriis=;€;ion brecovrnmeindations for revision of pay
scale were e’_[}”eCt’_from 1.1.1996. But such
retrospec.ttve_ by equating the post of
ASPO/ASRM_’.to.vtha.t of In other words. the effect of
CCA_;revised VPag.{V_VVR’utes 1997 applicable with retrospective
V’ _€Jj’eet:froin 1″; 1.1 that the post of HSG I became equal to
rm} f ASPO/ASRM and HSGJ ceased to be a
proj¥,qotiono1_~.posit with reference to ASRM and the pay also
was’««..the,__’s’a.rne for both the posts. As a consequence, what
considered as a promotion on 16.4.1996 ceased to be a
A fprotrnotion on account of the retrospective operation of 5*”! Pay
.9 Cornrnission Scales ofPay. Necessarily, therefore. the benefit
_,Qf:RLt1€ 22 {I} [a] (i) extended to the petitioner when he was
promoted on 16.4.1996 had to be undone.
The Promotion of petitioner to HSGJ became non
existent with retrospective effect and it_follows that the benefit
£3
of’FR 22 in {a} in will not be available. .-in
Therefore, the department was justified. in _
as a consequence of giving effect to fifth pdg”cornfrtissio’rz–«i
recommendations with effect from VI.”I’.i’–996f_’ peti’iio’r1exrvLDdsv–.&
not entitled to the benefit under FR:’A;22::'{B..;’a)
given in regard to HSG–I on; promoti_on wit;h”‘V’hAej,{]tect
16.4.1996.” , _ _ i
11. On considering the _f_ac:ts__of._the presentggcase, We
are of the V1’e\_v” _.that;'”o’n’iilthex_?i.mp1.ernentation of the
recon1mendat.ior1″ oifjttie PayCqimfnissioin, the pay scales of
ASRM an¢1_VHs<}¥-1 {i5e_re fin' therefore, from 1/ 1/ 1996
onwards? the entitled to the pay scale of
Rs.6500–fi0.Q"– li05Ci0an:'d fixation of saiary was rightly
set right by the n§pa1~mient. Since the respondent was in no
for the same, the amount of Rs.38,13éL/-
I to.-:'the respondent for the period from March
199t}.__to 2001 is not recoverable and if any amount
hasbeen._.i'ecoVered, the respondent is entitled to refund of
._s_a5me. The directions given by the Tribunal are in
a_c_eordan.ce with the ratio of the decision of the Apex
Court in Sahib Ramis case and the same do not calf] for any
via
#:3-
interference in this writ petition. The writ petition
is accordin I . dismissed.
Y
‘JJQDGE