it2025_00532 — The seven Applicants in this OA who are Upper Division Clerks are posted at Southern Naval Command, Kochi. On implementation of ACP Scheme, LDCs and UDCs were granted their 2nd and 1st financial upgradations in the scale of pay of ₹ 5,000-8,000 (prerevised). Navy adopted CDS (RP) Rules, 2008 clubbing the two scales as ₹ 6,500-10,500 with Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200. On hearing both sides, the Tribunal held that the Applicants are entitled to get their pay fixed as per Rule 13 of CD

IT Rules

The seven Applicants in this OA who are Upper Division Clerks are posted at Southern Naval Command, Kochi. On implementation of ACP Scheme, LDCs and UDCs were granted their 2nd and 1st financial upgradations in the scale of pay of ₹ 5,000-8,000 (prerevised). Navy adopted CDS (RP) Rules, 2008 clubbing the two scales as ₹ 6,500-10,500 with Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200. On hearing both sides, the Tribunal held that the Applicants are entitled to get their pay fixed as per Rule 13 of CDS (RP) Rules, 2008 by reckoning minimum of the revised pay scale implemented with effect from 1-1-2006 and the pay of the Applicant fixed accordingly restricting the arrears to 3 years of filing of this OA as per law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh [ 2008 (8), Section 648 ]. — This is an excerpt from the judgment in the case of All India Naval Clerks Association and others v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others. The chunk discusses a dispute over pay fixation for sev... — Facts: There are 7 Applicants in this OA. The 1st Applicant is All India Naval Clerks' Association represented by its General Secretary K.S. Sanjay Babu and the rest are UDC, HQ Southern Naval Command. They are above 54 years old. Applicants pray for a declaration that they are entitled to get higher grade fixed as per Rule 13 of CDS (RP) Rules, 2008 by reckoning the minimum of the revised pay scale implemented with effect from 1-1-2006 since their upgradation was long after 1-1-2006. They also pray to re-fix their pay in accordance with Rule 13 of CDS (RP) Rules, 2008 releasing the arrears of salary and other service benefits within a time-frame as fixed by Tribunal. In this case of pay fixation, it is enough if the short controversy raised in the OA that, whether pay fixation done by the Respondents of Naval Department after granting ACP Scheme between 1-1-2006 to 29-9-2008 to the Applicants should be as per Rule 13 or Rule 7 of CDS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008℃ Pay fixation of Applicants is reproduced after grant of higher Grade and the Pay of the Applicants stood at ₹ 9,830. The grievance of the Applicant is that, after grant of financial upgradation under ACP Scheme, it should have been fixed in the prerevised scale of Assistant in the pay scale of ₹ 6,500-10,500 after taking into account the upgraded post and pay scale as the Applicants have exercised the option to come over to the revised scale of pay with effect from the date of grant of financial upgradation under ACP Scheme. As per their contention, the total pay including Grade Pay should be ₹ 16,290. According to the Applicants, the mistake in the fixation of their pay is due to Respondents to not have reckoned the revised pay in the revised Pay Band which they have got after getting benefit of ACP. To deal with the rules / legal position, Rules 5, 7 and 13 of the CDS (RP) Rules, 2008 are considered. Those Rules 5, 7 and 13 are reproduced. Rule 5 deals with drawal of pay in the revised pay structure, Rule 7 deals with fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure and Rule 13 is fixation of pay on promotion after 1-1-2006. The above rules are reproduced in the judgment. In Rule 10, clarificatory OM on 13th September, 2008 is reproduced which gives the clarification of fixation of pay on promotion after 1-1-2006. Applicant relied on the matter of Union of India and others v. Balbir Singh Turn and another [ 2018 (1) SCC 999 ]. In that case it was held that recommendation of Sixth CPC as modified and accepted by Central Government in so far they relate to pay structure, pay scales, grade pay, etc. will apply from 1-1-2006. This decision cannot be modified by issuing executive instruction. Hence the executive instruction, dated 30-5-2011 flies in the face of cabinet decision reflected in Resolution, dated 30-8-2008. Hence the executive instruction, dated 30-5-2011 is ultra vires the resolution of the Government. Apex Court held that the decision of the Government cannot be modified by executive instruction. Relying on the judgment in the case of Union of India and others v. Rajkumar Anand [ SLP (C) No. 26336 of 2018 ] deals with this issue at length. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced and hence the pay revision as per rule is to be done and arrears thereon one paid. The above decision of the Apex Court is also applicable for Rule 11 which is akin to Rule 13. Rule 11 stipulates that the pay fixation is applicable from the date of upgradation in ACP scale and Rule 7 deals with fixation of pay in the revised pay structure. Rule 7 is applicable where upgradation of the scale / post is as a result of VI CPC. The above view finds a place in Paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 of the judgment in O.A. No. 180/569 of 2014, dated the 3rd April, 2018. Paras. 14 and 15 is reproduced for clarity. "Applicants have given their options and elected revised pay structure with effect from 1-1-2006 on different dates and their pay got fixed at Grade Pay of ₹ 4,600. Though the Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that there is a typographical error as it was written Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200, it was undisputed fact that the Applicants got Grade Pay of ₹ 4,600 after getting ACP benefits because of merger of pay scales at Annexure A-3 of ₹ 4,500-7,000 and ₹ 5,000-8,000 to revised pay scale of ₹ 6,500-10,500 in PB-2 with Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200 with effect from 1-1-2006. This was admitted by Respondents in their reply statement in Paragraph 3. But they took a persistent stand that Clause A
(i) and
(ii) of Rule 7 by multiplying the existing pay as on 1-1-2006 by factor of 1.86 and rounding the resultant figures to the next multiple of ten shall apply in this case". Respondents further stated that Grade Pay corresponding to the upgraded scale as indicated in Column 6 of Part 'B' of A-3 will be payable in addition as per OM, dated 13-10-2008, which has taken a similar view in Paras. 2 and 3 (both paragraphs are reproduced) of the above OM, dated 13-10-2008.

IT Rules

The seven Applicants in this OA who are Upper Division Clerks are posted at Southern Naval Command, Kochi. On implementation of ACP Scheme, LDCs and UDCs were granted their 2nd and 1st financial upgradations in the scale of pay of ₹ 5,000-8,000 (prerevised). Navy adopted CDS (RP) Rules, 2008 clubbing the two scales as ₹ 6,500-10,500 with Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200. On hearing both sides, the Tribunal held that the Applicants are entitled to get their pay fixed as per Rule 13 of CDS (RP) Rules, 2008 by reckoning minimum of the revised pay scale implemented with effect from 1-1-2006 and the pay of the Applicant fixed accordingly restricting the arrears to 3 years of filing of this OA as per law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh [ 2008 (8), Section 648 ]. — This is an excerpt from the judgment in the case of All India Naval Clerks Association and others v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others. The chunk discusses a dispute over pay fixation for sev... — Facts: There are 7 Applicants in this OA. The 1st Applicant is All India Naval Clerks' Association represented by its General Secretary K.S. Sanjay Babu and the rest are UDC, HQ Southern Naval Command. They are above 54 years old. Applicants pray for a declaration that they are entitled to get higher grade fixed as per Rule 13 of CDS (RP) Rules, 2008 by reckoning the minimum of the revised pay scale implemented with effect from 1-1-2006 since their upgradation was long after 1-1-2006. They also pray to re-fix their pay in accordance with Rule 13 of CDS (RP) Rules, 2008 releasing the arrears of salary and other service benefits within a time-frame as fixed by Tribunal. In this case of pay fixation, it is enough if the short controversy raised in the OA that, whether pay fixation done by the Respondents of Naval Department after granting ACP Scheme between 1-1-2006 to 29-9-2008 to the Applicants should be as per Rule 13 or Rule 7 of CDS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008℃ Pay fixation of Applicants is reproduced after grant of higher Grade and the Pay of the Applicants stood at ₹ 9,830. The grievance of the Applicant is that, after grant of financial upgradation under ACP Scheme, it should have been fixed in the prerevised scale of Assistant in the pay scale of ₹ 6,500-10,500 after taking into account the upgraded post and pay scale as the Applicants have exercised the option to come over to the revised scale of pay with effect from the date of grant of financial upgradation under ACP Scheme. As per their contention, the total pay including Grade Pay should be ₹ 16,290. According to the Applicants, the mistake in the fixation of their pay is due to Respondents to not have reckoned the revised pay in the revised Pay Band which they have got after getting benefit of ACP. To deal with the rules / legal position, Rules 5, 7 and 13 of the CDS (RP) Rules, 2008 are considered. Those Rules 5, 7 and 13 are reproduced. Rule 5 deals with drawal of pay in the revised pay structure, Rule 7 deals with fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure and Rule 13 is fixation of pay on promotion after 1-1-2006. The above rules are reproduced in the judgment. In Rule 10, clarificatory OM on 13th September, 2008 is reproduced which gives the clarification of fixation of pay on promotion after 1-1-2006. Applicant relied on the matter of Union of India and others v. Balbir Singh Turn and another [ 2018 (1) SCC 999 ]. In that case it was held that recommendation of Sixth CPC as modified and accepted by Central Government in so far they relate to pay structure, pay scales, grade pay, etc. will apply from 1-1-2006. This decision cannot be modified by issuing executive instruction. Hence the executive instruction, dated 30-5-2011 flies in the face of cabinet decision reflected in Resolution, dated 30-8-2008. Hence the executive instruction, dated 30-5-2011 is ultra vires the resolution of the Government. Apex Court held that the decision of the Government cannot be modified by executive instruction. Relying on the judgment in the case of Union of India and others v. Rajkumar Anand [ SLP (C) No. 26336 of 2018 ] deals with this issue at length. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced and hence the pay revision as per rule is to be done and arrears thereon one paid. The above decision of the Apex Court is also applicable for Rule 11 which is akin to Rule 13. Rule 11 stipulates that the pay fixation is applicable from the date of upgradation in ACP scale and Rule 7 deals with fixation of pay in the revised pay structure. Rule 7 is applicable where upgradation of the scale / post is as a result of VI CPC. The above view finds a place in Paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 of the judgment in O.A. No. 180/569 of 2014, dated the 3rd April, 2018. Paras. 14 and 15 is reproduced for clarity. "Applicants have given their options and elected revised pay structure with effect from 1-1-2006 on different dates and their pay got fixed at Grade Pay of ₹ 4,600. Though the Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that there is a typographical error as it was written Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200, it was undisputed fact that the Applicants got Grade Pay of ₹ 4,600 after getting ACP benefits because of merger of pay scales at Annexure A-3 of ₹ 4,500-7,000 and ₹ 5,000-8,000 to revised pay scale of ₹ 6,500-10,500 in PB-2 with Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200 with effect from 1-1-2006. This was admitted by Respondents in their reply statement in Paragraph 3. But they took a persistent stand that Clause A
(i) and
(ii) of Rule 7 by multiplying the existing pay as on 1-1-2006 by factor of 1.86 and rounding the resultant figures to the next multiple of ten shall apply in this case". Respondents further stated that Grade Pay corresponding to the upgraded scale as indicated in Column 6 of Part 'B' of A-3 will be payable in addition as per OM, dated 13-10-2008, which has taken a similar view in Paras. 2 and 3 (both paragraphs are reproduced) of the above OM, dated 13-10-2008.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text