UNION OF INDIA Vs. BAKHTAUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein initially joined Indian Army as Naik and was transferred to the pension establishment w.e.f. 30.06.1985. At the time of release from Army, the respondent herein was drawing basic pay at the stage of Rs. 288/-. Being an Ex-Serviceman the respondent herein got re-employed as vehicle mechanic in the respondent department w.e.f. 1.7.1985. There was no break in the re-employment of the respondent and he was granted the pay scale of Rs. 260-6-290-EB-6326-8-390-10-400. However, his pay was fixed at the minimum of the pay scale i.e. Rs. 260/- instead of protecting his pay at the stage of Rs. 288/-, which he was drawing while in Army service. The respondent herein submitted that his pay should have been fixed at Rs. 288/- thereby protecting the pay he was drawing while he was in army service and that could not have been fixed at a lower level at Rs. 260/- which is minimum of the pay scale. His case was recommended by the office of I.O.C. EME Records vide letter dated 17.10.1997. It was also recommended by the Major, OIC, Adm. GP for 316, Station Workshop, vide his letter dated 06.11.1997. Still the petitioners did not accede to his request. He thereafter even served legal notice dated 26.09.2006 which also went unheeded. Thereafter the respondent filed O.A. before the Tribunal which was disposed of on 11.08.2008 with a direction to the petitioner to consider the claim of the respondent herein as per Rules. The matter was considered but the petitioners rejected the claim of the respondent vide orders dated 01.04.2009 on the ground that in a similar case DOP&T had clarified that when a reemployed pensioner asks for re-fixation of pay under the 1983 orders, his pay has to be fixed at the minimum of the scale and the question of granting advance increment would arise only if there is any hardship. It was also mentioned that the question of hardship is to be seen from the point of view of whether minimum pay of re-employed post plus full pension plus pension equivalent of gratuity (whether ignorable or not) is less than the last pay drawn at the time of retirement. If there is no such hardship, no advance increment can be granted. The order further spelt out that as in the case of the respondents there was no hardship, inasmuch as the minimum pay of the re-employed post plus full pension plus pension equivalent to gratuity (whether ignorable or not) was not less than the last pay drawn at the time of retirement. The petitioner thus maintained that the respondent's pay had rightly been fixed at the minimum of the pay scale in absence of any hardship.

(2.) This order of the petitioners was challenged by the respondent herein by filing Original Application (O.A.) which has been allowed by the learned Tribunal vide orders dated 11.07.2011. In coming to this conclusion that the respondent's pay needs to be protected, the Tribunal has referred to orders passed in O.A. No. 1322-PB of 1996 titled as Ex-Havaldar D.P.S. Kang v. Union of India. The Tribunal has noted that similar prayer made by Shri D.P.S. Kang was allowed and the benefit was extended to him. Therefore, there was no reason to meet out a different treatment to the respondent herein. Precise reasons given in this behalf are contained in para No. 5 of the orders of the Tribunal which are as follows:-

(3.) We do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. It is sought to be projected that the case of the respondent is not that of hardship and therefore his claim is not maintainable. The reason given in the order dated 01.04.2009 is as under:-