DOP: Regarding anomaly in fixation of pay on promotion

No.2-13/2014-PAP
Government of India
Ministry of Communications
Department of Posts
[Establishment Division / PAP Section]
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi 110 001

Dated: 27.03.2019

To

1. All Chief Postmasters General / Postmasters General,
2. Chief General Manager, BD Directorate / Parcel Directorates / PL1 Directorate,
3. Director, RAKNPA / GM CEPT / Directors of All PTCs,
4. Addl. Director General, Army Postal Services, R.N. Puram, New Delhi, 5. All General Managers (Finance) / DAP / DDAP.

Sub: Regarding anomaly in fixation of pay on promotion.

I am directed to forward herewith a copy of order dated 05.09,2018 of the Hon’ble High Court, Jodhpur Bench in DBCWP No. 2810/2014 filed by Shri Ram Swaroop Joshi Vis UOI, & others on the above mentioned subject wherein it has been ordered that:-

“The Tribunal has correctly noted that the anomaly is not on account of promotion but on account of the fixation of pay in the new pay scale.”

You are requested to kindly circulate these orders to all your subordinate offices for information/defending such cases in CAT.

Encl.: As above.

[S.B.Vyavahare]
Asstt.. Director General [ESTT.]

 

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ No. 2810/2014

Ram Swaroop Josh

Versus

Union Of India And Ors.

–Respondent

For Petitioner(s)            : Mr. Dinesh Ojha

For Respondent(s)        : Mr. Vipul Singhvi.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

05/09/2018

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties-:
2. Case of the writ petitioner is thaCconcededly Ramesh Chand junior to him and thus ad per the petitioner his pay needs to be stepped up on the principle that a junior cannot receive salary more than the senior Counsel cited the decision reported as (2009 1 SCC (L&S) 578 Gurcharan Singh Grewal & ors, vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & ors.

The decision is an authority on the point on which it is rendered keeping in view the facts of the case. The decision of the Supreme Court concerns an anomaly when difference in increments in the scale resulted in a junior getting more pay than the senior.

3. In the instant case what has happened as noted by the Tribunal that the writ petitioner earned a promotion on 17.11.1995. He sought for and was granted one increment in the pay-scale applicable i.e. Rs.800-1150. Ramesh Chand was to be promoted on 22.11.1995 but due to being on leave he joined on 18.02.1996. By then the revised pay-scale of Rs.2550-3200 had come into being. Thus, the benefit of the increment granted to the Ramesh Chand Soni was in the revised pay-scale. it is apparent that the petitioner did not opt for date of his increment to be deferred. If he done so he would be got same benefit as Ramesh Chand Soni.

4. The Tribunal has correctly noted that that the anomaly is not on account of promotion but on account of the fixation of pay in the new pay-scale.

5. The writ petition is dismissed.

(Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

[download id=”110466″ template=”dlm-buttons-button”]