N Bhaskar vs INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
OA/2232/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/21/2232/2024
th
HYDERABAD, this the 8 day of October, 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member
Hon’ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member
N. Bhaskar, S/o. Babaiah,
Aged 54 years, Working as Laboratory Assistant - 1,
(Group - C), National Institute of Nutrition,
Hyderabad.
... Applicant.
(By Advocate: Mr. T P Acharya)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department,
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001,
Represented by its Secretary.
2. Indian Council of Medical Research,
V. Ramalingaswamy Bhavan,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi - 110 029,
Represented by its Director General.
3. National Institute of Nutrition,
Indian Council of Medical Research,
Jamai-Osmania P.O., Hyderabad-500 007,
Represented by its Director.
… Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mrs. K Rajitha, Sr.PC for CG)
----
Page 1 of 5
Digitally signed by RAMNADH RAMJEE KUDARU
DN: C=IN, CN=RAMNADH RAMJEE KUDARU, L=Hyderabad, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT, ST=Telangana,
[email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 732348c768a7b7e4c6959efcc7c432eb1c76de695efd01222f9bb03887603c3f, street=No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan
Opp Public Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana, telephoneNumber=
RAMNADH RAMJEE 4cf686b2493e83230b20db37ee806292fd057b6143ee962993703f106c8178fe
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.27 14:34:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
KUDARU
OA/2232/2024
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)
By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following
relief(s):
“… to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the Office Order
dated: 21-10-2024 in No. ICMR-NIN/Estt-I/Pay Re-fix/2024-25/538
rd
by the 3 respondent is highly arbitrary, illegal and violative
principles of natural justice and thus set the same aside and
consequently direct the respondents to continue the pay scale of the
applicant as fixed in the Office Order dated: 15-10-2019 in No.
NIN/Pers/Refix/2019-20/601 and not to reduce the pay of the
applicant and pass such other and further order or orders as are
deemed fit and in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant
rd
submits that the applicant was initially engaged as NMR in the 3 respondent
Institute, was subsequently granted Temporary Status, and his services were
regularized w.e.f. 23.10.2007. Under the Merit Based Assessment Promotion
Scheme (MBAPS), he was promoted as Lab Attendant (Level-2) w.e.f.
01.04.2015 and, thereafter, as Lab Assistant (Level-5) w.e.f. 01.04.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that certain employees
junior to the applicant, namely, Sri E. Kondal Reddy, Sri K. Venkatesh and
Sri P. Dasrath, were drawing higher pay despite their subsequent
regularization and promotion. Upon the applicant’ representation, the
respondents, vide Office Order dt. 15.10.2019, stepped up his pay on par with
his juniors, thereby rectifying the pay anomaly. However, vide impugned
Office Order dt. 21.10.2024, the respondents have re-fixed the applicant's pay
retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.2016, reducing it from Rs.30,200/- to Rs.29,300/-
and, as on 01.01.2024, from Rs.40,400/- to Rs.39,200/-, with a further
proposal to recover the alleged excess payment. It is contended that the
respondents have re-fixed the applicant’s pay and proposed recovery without
issuing a prior show-notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing. Hence,
the present OA is filed.
Page 2 of 5
Digitally signed by RAMNADH RAMJEE KUDARU
DN: C=IN, CN=RAMNADH RAMJEE KUDARU, L=Hyderabad, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT, ST=Telangana,
[email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 732348c768a7b7e4c6959efcc7c432eb1c76de695efd01222f9bb03887603c3f, street=No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan
Opp Public Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana, telephoneNumber=
RAMNADH RAMJEE 4cf686b2493e83230b20db37ee806292fd057b6143ee962993703f106c8178fe
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.27 14:34:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
KUDARU
OA/2232/2024
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that, pursuant to the applicant’s representation dt. 20.02.2019 seeking
stepping up of his basic pay on par with his juniors, his case was considered in
th
terms of Rule 7(10)(i) of the 7 CPC Notification dt. 25.07.2016 issued by the
Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, and his pay was accordingly
re-fixed, vide order dt. 11.10.2019. Learned counsel further submits that, in
the case of another employee, Sri A. Shanker, whose pay had similarly been
nd
revised and who retired on 30.04.2024, the 2 respondent, vide letter dt.
24.01.2023, clarified that there was no provision for stepping up of pay under
the Merit Based Assessment Scheme/IRASs Rules, 2017, and that such
benefit was applicable only in cases of vacancy-based promotions, in terms of
the DoPT Order dated 26.10.2018. Consequently, the pay of the said
employee was re-fixed, by reducing the pay, vide Order dt. 08.05.2023.
Thereafter, Shri A. Shankar submitted a representation dt. 26.08.2024, stating
that the pay of his colleagues, who had also been granted the benefit of
stepping up of pay pursuant to the ICMR Order dt. 24.01.2023, had not been
similarly re-fixed. The said colleagues included M. Venkataiah, G. Yadagiri,
D. Madhava Reddy, P. Ravindar, I. Poshetty, B.V. Sudharshan Babu, M.
Narasing Rao, A. Jangaiah and also the applicant herein. Accordingly, the pay
of the Laboratory Assistants, including the applicant, who had been granted
the benefit of stepping up of pay, was reviewed and re-fixed. Consequent
orders in this regard were issued, vide Office Order dt. 21.10.2024.
4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings and
material available on record.
5. We find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that
the respondents could not have re-fixed the applicant’s pay and initiated
recovery of the alleged excess payment, without issuing a show-cause notice
Page 3 of 5
Digitally signed by RAMNADH RAMJEE KUDARU
DN: C=IN, CN=RAMNADH RAMJEE KUDARU, L=Hyderabad, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT, ST=Telangana,
[email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 732348c768a7b7e4c6959efcc7c432eb1c76de695efd01222f9bb03887603c3f, street=No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan
Opp Public Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana, telephoneNumber=
RAMNADH RAMJEE 4cf686b2493e83230b20db37ee806292fd057b6143ee962993703f106c8178fe
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.27 14:34:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
KUDARU
OA/2232/2024
and affording him an opportunity to explain his position. It is well settled that
an order adversely affecting an employee’s pay and resulting in recovery, if
any, must be passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Revising the pay of an employee to his disadvantage without prior notice and
an opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained.
6. We also refer to Rule 7(10)(i) of the CCS(Revised Pay) Rules, 2016
which reads as under:
“(10) (i) In cases where a senior Government servant promoted to a
st
higher post before the 1 day of January, 2016 draws less pay in the
revised pay structure than his junior who is promoted to the higher post
st
on or after the 1 day of January, 2016, the pay of senior Government
servant in the revised pay structure shall be stepped up to an amount
equal to the pay as fixed for his junior in that higher post and such
stepping up shall be done with effect from the date of promotion of the
junior Government servant subject to the fulfillment of the following
conditions, namely:-
(a) both the junior and the senior Government servants belong
to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted
are identical in the same cadre;
(b) the existing pay structure and the revised pay structure of
the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay
are identical;
(c) the senior Government servants at the time of promotion
are drawing equal or more pay than the junior,
(d) the anomaly is directly as a result of the application of the
provisions of Fundamental Rule 22 or any other rule or order
regulating pay fixation on such promotion in the revised pay
structure:
Provided that if the junior officer was drawing more pay in the
existing pay structure than the senior by virtue of any advance
increments granted to him, the provisions of this sub-rule shall not
be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer.
(ii) The order relating to re-fixation of the pay of the senior officer in
accordance with clause (i) shall be issued under Fundamental Rule 27
and the senior officer shall be entitled to the next increment on
completion of his required qualifying service with effect from the date of
re-fixation of pay.”
7. In view of the foregoing, the impugned Office Order dt. 21.10.2024,
having been issued without a prior show-cause notice, cannot be sustained and
is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue
Page 4 of 5
Digitally signed by RAMNADH RAMJEE KUDARU
DN: C=IN, CN=RAMNADH RAMJEE KUDARU, L=Hyderabad, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT, ST=Telangana,
[email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 732348c768a7b7e4c6959efcc7c432eb1c76de695efd01222f9bb03887603c3f, street=No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan
Opp Public Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana, telephoneNumber=
RAMNADH RAMJEE 4cf686b2493e83230b20db37ee806292fd057b6143ee962993703f106c8178fe
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.27 14:34:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
KUDARU
OA/2232/2024
show-cause notice to the applicant within 30 days from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. The applicant is at liberty to submit his
representation, along with supporting documents and relevant judicial
precedents, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the show-cause
notice. Thereafter, the Competent Authority shall consider the representation,
afford the applicant an opportunity of personal hearing and pass a reasoned
and speaking order in accordance with rules and law. Until the matter is
finally decided by the Competent Authority, no recovery shall be effected
from the applicant pursuant to the impugned order, particularly in view of the
submission made on behalf of the respondents that no recovery has been
effected till date. It is also made clear that this Tribunal has not gone into the
merits of the case.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (MANISH GARG)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/Ram/
Page 5 of 5
Digitally signed by RAMNADH RAMJEE KUDARU
DN: C=IN, CN=RAMNADH RAMJEE KUDARU, L=Hyderabad, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT, ST=Telangana,
[email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 732348c768a7b7e4c6959efcc7c432eb1c76de695efd01222f9bb03887603c3f, street=No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan
Opp Public Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana, telephoneNumber=
RAMNADH RAMJEE 4cf686b2493e83230b20db37ee806292fd057b6143ee962993703f106c8178fe
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.27 14:34:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
KUDARU