Renjith P.K. v. Union of India

2. For the sake of convenience, the lead matter i.e. W.P.(C) 4448/2016 is I discussed in some detail. The facts in other cases would be more or less • similar, only the dates would be different.

3. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4448/20 16 titled Vijayan V V v. Union of India was appointed as Constable 'GD' (General Duty) in Border Security Force CBSF') on 5 th July 1993. By an order dated 18/19 th May 1999, he was promoted as Assistalit Sub Inspector (' ASI ') (Clerical) (Clk). At this point in time the Petitionej" was posted in the 61 st Battalion. He was required to be relieved and Join as ASI Clerk in the 153rd Battalion of the BSF. The said JI/. P,(C) 4448/2016 alit! cOJ!l1ec/er/ mailers Page2016 order in Para 2 made it clear that the appointment as ASl (Clk) "will bt; effect from 141h June 1999 on joining place of appointment."

4. The Respondents, for reasons best known to them, relieved the Petitioner 1h from the 61 sl Battalion only on July 1999 and within four days thereafter, the Petitioner joined the 153 rd Battalion as AS! (Ministerial) on 31 51 July 1999. On his joining the 153Td Battalion, an order was issued that the pay of the Petitioner in the rank of ASl (Ministerial) would be fixed with • effect from 31 SI July 1999 i.e. the date of his assuming charge as ASl (Ministerial). L,

5. The Petitioner states that although, for the purposes of ftxation of pay as AS! (Clerical), the date shall be taken to be 141h June 1999, because the delay in the Petitioner joining that post was on account of the Respondents. He states that he did not pursue the matter much because monetarily, the difference was not substantial. •

6. However, the issue arose when an Office Memorandum ('OM') was issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance on 19 Th March 2012, which explains that in terms of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, there would be a uniform date of annua! increment, namely, 1sl July of every year upon an employee completing six months and above in the revised pay structure. It was further provided that 'the first increment, after fixation of pay on 151 January 2006, in the revised pay structure will be granted on I sl July 2006 for those employees for whom the date of next increment was between lSI July 2006 to lS I January 2007. w.P. (C) 444812016 fllld conl1ected mailers Page 3 0/6 On further consideration of the matter, it had been decided that 'those Central Government employees who were due to get their annual increment February to June 2006, may be granted one increment on 1 January 2006 in the pre revised scale as a onetime measure, and thereafter, the next increment in the revised pay structure on 1st July 2006 as per Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rule, 2008.

7. This meant that for those who were to get their increment between • February and June 2006, one extra increment as a one-time measure was provided. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, if his date of joining as ASI (Clerical) is taken as 14'h June 1999, which was within the period February to June 2006, then he would be also entitled to the one extra increment as notified by the OM dated 19'h March 2012. •

8. Following the above OM, the Petitioner made his first representation on 29'h November 2012 praying for the one extra increment. While the BSF supported his plea, it was shot down by the Ministry of Finance on the ground that the request was delayed.

9. This led to the Petitioner ftling the present petition in May 2006. The facts in the connected petitions are more or less identical. Only the relevant dates would be different in each case. The basic issue however, remains the same, viz., whether the persons who should have joined as ASI (Clerical) on a date falling between January and June of the relevant year, can claim one extra increment on the ground that the failure on their part to join as ASI (Clerical) during that period was attributable not to themselves but the w.P.(C) 444812016 olld cOlllleClell mailers Page 4.1(6 Respondents?

10. The stand taken by the Respondents in the counter affidavits is thal the Petitioners were not given one additional increment in the pre revised pay structure since the dates when such increment was due did not fall between IS! February and 30lh June but on 31 July of the relevant year. It is admitted that this resulted in a substantial variation of the pay as per the revised pay scale in terms of the 7th CPC recommendations. In other words, it is not • disputed that vis-a-vis their batch mates/juniors selected and appointed as ASI (Ministerial) with effect from the dates by which they were supposed to c, join as such, the pay of the Petitioners is substantially lower.

II. As regards the rejection of their representations, it is submitted by the

Respondents that the Petitioners were 'fully aware of the consequences of late joining' and that they 'should have represented before the Competent Authority for timely relieving for new place of posting.' •

12. The stand taken by the Respondents does not appear to be justified or ~I fair. A Constable in the BSF is not going to be able to choose when he can get relieved for assuming charge of the higher post to which he has been promoted/appointed, if relieving orders are not passed by the superiors in good time. As it transpired, some ofthe batchmates/juniors ofthe Petitioners who were relieved in time to join as ASI (Min/Clk) were able to get the one additional increment in terms of the OM dated 191h March 2012 resulting in a difference in the pay scale. According to the Petitioners, in monetary tenus, this difference is substantial, particularly, after the pay revision H/. P.. 1'0 4448/.20/6 ru",; CONnec ter/nttl/I"ers Puge S0/6 •. '(; brought about by the ]'h CPe. This fact is not disputed by the Respondents.

13. With the delay in the Petitioners joining as AS! (MinisteriaIiClerical) not being attributable to any omission on their part, but on account of the Respondents delaying the issue of their respective reliving orders, it is not fair to deprive the Petitioners of the consequential monetary benefits.

14. Consequently, this COUl[1] directs the Respondents to grant each of the Petitioners, the one extra increment to which they are entitled by treating the notional date of their respective joining as AS! (Ministerial/Clerical) to be on or before the last date by which they were to join in terms of the original posting orders and to work out their pay scale accordingly. The resultant arrears will be paid to each Petitioner not later than 8 weeks from today failing which the Respondents would be liable to pay simple interest at 6% per annum on the said sum for the period of delay in terms of this order.

15. The petitions and pending applications are disposed of in the above terms.