IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION NO.5819/2017 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
B.M.C. KUMAR S/O GOPALA PILLAI AGED 66 YEARS RETIRED SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER GRADE-II CENTRE FOR AIR BORNE SYSTEMS R/AT 2205, HAL III STAGE 5TH CROSS, BM KAVAL NEW THIPPASANDRA POST BANGALORE – 560 075 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.SANGAMESWARAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DHQ POST OFFICE NEW DELHI – 110 001 2. DIRECTOR CENTRE FOR AIR BORNE SYSTEMS BELUR, YEMALUR POST OFFICE BANGALORE – 560 037 3. THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS ULAN BATAR ROAD, PALAM DELHI CANTT. - 110 010 4. THE CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST OFFICE BANGALORE – 560 093 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.ANANDARAMA, CGC) WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2017 IN O.A.1525/2013 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CAT BANGALORE; THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ORDER DATED 19.03.2012 STIPULATES THE CRITERIA IS ONLY DATE OF INCREMENT IN THE PREREVISED SCALE AND TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 19.03.2012 AND ALSO TO GRANT ALL BENEFITS SUCH AS TO GRANT ONE INCREMENT IN THE PREREVISED SCALE AS ON 1.1.2006 AND REFIX TO REVISED PAY WITH EFFECT FROM 1.1.2006 WITH NEXT INCREMENT AS ON 1.7.2006 AT ANNEXURE-D.
WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 11.01.2017 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore.
2. The question that falls for determination is as to whether the petitioner who is a Central Government employee is entitled for one increment as per the Office Memorandum dated 19.03.2012, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-D; relevant para of the memorandum reads as follows:
“3. On further consideration and in exercise of the powers available under CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, the President is pleased to decide that in relaxation of stipulation under Rule 10 of these Rules, those central government employees who were due to get their annual increment between February to June during 2006 may be granted one increment on 1.1.2006 in the pre- revised pay scale as a one time measure and thereafter will get the next increment in the revised pay structure on 1.7.2006 as per Rule 10 of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008. The pay of the eligible employees may be re-fixed accordingly.”
(underlining supplied) 3. On the representation of the petitioner that he was entitled for one increment as per the aforesaid office memorandum, respondent No.3 examined the representation and by order dated 21.10.2013 held that the petitioner was not eligible for the benefit of one increment. It is relevant to refer to paras 3 to 5 of the said order dated 21.10.2013; they read as follows:
“3. In this connection it is clarified that MoF Deptt. Of Expdr. OM dated 19.03.2012 is a relaxation of stipulation of Rule 10 under CCS (RP) Rules 2008 and grant of one increment in the pre-revised scale to those employees who were due to get their annual increment between Feb to June 2006. Thereafter, they will get the next increment in the revised pay structure on 1/7/2006 as per Rule 10 of CCS (RP) rules 2008.
4. The above order is not applicable in promotional cases. On promotion, an individual can opt to get his pay fixed either from the date of promotion or after accrual of annual increment in the lower scale whichever is beneficial to him under FR22.
5. Since on account of revision of option your pay has been fixed from the date of promotion as Sr. Accounts Officer w.e.f. 02-12-2005 and as such you will be entitled to get your next increment on completion of 12 months service from the date of promotion in the normal course. Therefore, you are not eligible for the benefit of increments under MoF O.M. dated 19-03-2012. However as per OM No.1/1/2008-IC dated 13-09-2008-clarification No.1 you will be eligible to draw increment from 1.7.2006.”
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner carried the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal. By order dated 11.01.2017, it has dismissed the petitioner’s application in O.A.No.1525/2013 with the following reasoning:
“5. After examining the contentions of both parties we are convinced that the respondents have adopted the correct line and that the applicant has tried to secure a double benefit for himself. In this context it is worth citing the following paragraphs from Annexure-A7:
Re-exercise of option to switch over to Revised Pay Structure under Sixth CPC as per GOI, MoF O.M.No.10/2/2011-E-III(A) dated 03.01.2013 is applicable only those government employees whose annual increment in pre-revised scale were due between February to June, 2006 and previously opted to switch over to 6th CPC from the date of their annual increment.
Whereas, in the present case, the officer has already opted 6th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2006 with DNI 01.07.2006. Therefore, question of re-exercising of option to switch over to 6th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2006 does not arise.
6. The respondents have also submitted a copy of a note written by the Establishment (Pay-I) Section of the DOPT (Annexure R4) which says:
3. Consequent to the issue of OM dated 19.03.2012, Shri Kumar had requested for revising his option yet again for fixation of his pay w.e.f. DNI i.e. 01.02.2006 in order to get benefit of the said OM in terms of OM dated 03.01.2013. The above referred OMs, particularly the OM dated 19.03.2012 is not applicable in his case as Shri Kumar was promoted prior to 01.01.2006 and the OM is applicable, as clarified by Department of Expenditure earlier on a separate reference, for grant of one increment in the pre-revised scale and then fixing the pay in revised pay scale in respect of an employee who was holding a particular post as on 01.01.2006 and it was in respect of this particular post itself where the increment in the applicable pre-revised scale was due between February to June.
The respondents have submitted a copy of a note dated 16.12.2015 of the Department of Expenditure concurring in this view. It is obvious that the OA lacks merit.”
5. On the facts of the case, we are satisfied that the petitioner was not due to get his annual increment between February and June, 2006, and therefore, as rightly held by respondent No.3 and the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner is not entitled to one increment under the aforesaid official memorandum. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE LB