P K TRIVEDI vs Union Of India

Court
Central Administrative Tribunal

1

(Reserved on 09.09.2026)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad

th
This the_27 day of _October, 2026


HON’BLE MR. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, MEMBER-J.
HON’BLE MS. MANJU PANDEY, MEMBER-A.


Original Application No. 486 of 2013
1. P.K.Trivedi, son of Late R.C. Trivedi Resident of House No.- A
1063, Rajendra Nagar, District Bareilly.
……….. Applicant.

By Advocate: Mr. A.K. Dave.


Versus
1. Union of India through Principal Secretary, Ministry of
Agriculture, New Delhi.
2. Director, Indian Vetenary Research Institute, Izzat Nagar,
Bareilly.
3. Assistant Administrative Officer, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly, West 1,
Sub Division, Meerut.
4. Under Secretary (IA-I), Indian Council of Agriculture
Research (I.C.A.R.), Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.
5. Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi
Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.
……….. Respondents.


By Advocates: Mr. N.P. Singh.

Order
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial)
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
challenging the orders dated 05.07.2012 and 13.08.2012
Shakuntala Singh

2

relating to fixation of his pay and seeking consequential
benefits. The reliefs prayed for by the applicant are as under:-
“A- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of certiorari quashing the impugned orders
dated 05.07.2012 and consequential order
dated 13.08.2012 issued by respondent no.3
to compilation no. I.

B- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to
fix the pay of the applicant on the post of T-1
notionally w.e.f. 29.03.2006 Protecting the
basic pay of the applicant drawn in the lower
post and applicant annual increments may be
drawn notionally till 22.11.2011 and to pay
arrears for the period from 22.11.2011
onward after making the due drawn
statement for the said period.

C- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case.

D- To award the cost in favour of the applicant.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was
appointed as Lab Assistant (SC Grade-I) on 07.08.1977 and
was later promoted as SC Grade-III (Lab) in 1995. He
subsequently sought promotion to the post of T-1 (Dairy
Technician), and this Tribunal, vide judgment dated
20.05.2011 passed in O.A. No. 821 of 2006, directed that he be
considered for promotion to the said post from the date on
which his junior, Shri Triveni Yadav, was promoted, subject to
the prescribed selection criteria. Pursuant to the said
judgment, the applicant was promoted to the post of T-1 with
effect from 29.03.2006 on a notional basis, while actual
financial benefits were allowed from the date of his joining the
higher post, i.e., 22.11.2011. The applicant has challenged the
pay-fixation orders dated 05.07.2012 and 13.08.2012,
contending that his pay was not correctly fixed in accordance
with the aforesaid judgment. He has, therefore, filed the
present Original Application seeking quashing of the
Shakuntala Singh

3

impugned orders and a direction to the respondents to protect
his basic pay drawn in the lower post, grant admissible annual
increments notionally up to 22.11.2011, and pay the
consequential arrears from 22.11.2011 onwards.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant was entitled to notional promotion to the post of T-1
(Dairy Technician) with effect from 29.03.2006, in terms of the
judgment dated 20.05.2011 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.
821 of 2006. However, the respondents failed to grant him the
consequential benefits in the correct manner and passed the
impugned pay fixation orders dated 05.07.2012 and
13.08.2012. Learned counsel further submitted that the
applicant's basic pay drawn in the lower post was required to
be protected while fixing his pay in the higher post, with the
admissible annual increments granted notionally up to
22.11.2011. It was also submitted that the respondents could
not reduce or withdraw the applicant's admissible pay benefits
contrary to the applicable Fundamental Rules and the earlier
judgment of this Tribunal. Despite the applicant's
representations, the respondents did not redress his
grievance. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the
impugned orders be quashed and the respondents be
directed to refix the applicant's pay in accordance with the
rules and the aforesaid judgment and grant him the
consequential monetary benefits.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the applicant’s pay was fixed in accordance
with the applicable rules and the judgment passed by this
Tribunal in O.A. No. 821 of 2006. It was submitted that the
applicant was granted notional promotion to the post of T-1
Shakuntala Singh

4

(Dairy Technician) with effect from 29.03.2006, but he was
entitled to financial benefits only from the date of his actual
joining on 22.11.2011. Learned counsel further submitted that
the applicant could not claim the benefits of two different
categories of posts simultaneously. Since the applicant had
been appointed to the technical service, the benefits of the
MACP Scheme, which had earlier been granted to him while
working as Skilled Support Staff, were withdrawn in
accordance with the applicable rules. It was, therefore,
contended that the impugned pay fixation orders were lawful
and justified, and the applicant had no valid ground to
challenge the same.
5. In the counter affidavit and supplementary counter
affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents further
submitted that the applicant’s case had been examined by the
competent authority in the light of the earlier judgment of this
Tribunal, the applicable Fundamental Rules, the Technical
Service Rules and the relevant pay-fixation provisions. The
respondents clarified that the applicant’s pay was notionally
fixed in the T-1 grade with effect from 29.03.2006, while the
financial benefits were allowed from the date of his actual
joining the higher post. It was further submitted that Shri
Triveni Yadav’s case was distinguishable because the service
and pay-fixation circumstances, including the benefits earlier
granted under the MACP Scheme, were different. The
respondents maintained that the applicant’s pay had been
fixed after allowing the admissible notional increments and
that no benefit specifically granted under the earlier judgment
had been withheld. They further submitted that the matter had
been referred to the Council for clarification regarding the
correctness of the pay fixation in the light of the earlier
Shakuntala Singh

5

judgment and the applicable rules. On these grounds, the
respondents contended that the applicant’s claim for further
pay protection and consequential monetary benefits was not
sustainable and prayed that the Original Application be
dismissed.
6. In the rejoinder affidavit and supplementary rejoinder
affidavit, the applicant denied the respondents’ contention
regarding the correctness of the pay fixation and submitted
that the directions issued by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 821 of
2006 had not been properly implemented. It was contended
that the respondents had failed to protect the applicant’s pay
and grant admissible increments in accordance with the
applicable Fundamental Rules. Learned counsel further
submitted that the comparative pay records of the applicant
and Shri Triveni Yadav revealed discrepancies in pay fixation,
resulting in the applicant drawing less pay than his junior. It
was, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to
rectify the pay fixation and grant the consequential financial
benefits in accordance with the applicable rules and the
earlier judgment of this Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh
Grewal and Another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and
Others, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 578, to contend that an employee
should not be placed in a disadvantageous pay position vis-à-
vis his junior and that the principle of pay parity requires due
consideration. Learned counsel also relied upon the relevant
correspondence and comparative pay records placed on
record to submit that the applicant’s pay had not been
correctly fixed despite the earlier judgment of this Tribunal in
Shakuntala Singh

6

O.A. No. 821 of 2006. It was, therefore, contended that the
respondents were required to examine the applicant’s claim
for pay protection and stepping up of pay in accordance with
the applicable Fundamental Rules.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the
judgment dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 15479 of 2023,
Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Others v.
Ganesh Chandra Pant . Learned counsel also relied upon the
office order dated 05.07.2012 to submit that the applicant’s pay
had been fixed notionally with effect from 29.03.2006 in terms
of the judgment passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 821 of
2006, and that actual financial benefits were admissible from
the date of his joining the higher post, i.e., 22.11.2011. It was,
therefore, contended that the respondents had acted in
accordance with the earlier judicial directions and the
applicable rules and that no further relief was warranted.
9. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. A.K.
Dave, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. N.P. Singh,
learned counsel for the respondents, and examined the
pleadings, relevant documents and material available on
record.
10. The principal issue for consideration is whether the
respondents have correctly implemented the judgment dated
20.05.2011 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 821 of 2006
while fixing the applicant’s pay in the T-1 (Dairy Technician)
grade. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the applicant
was held entitled to consideration for promotion to the post of
T-1, subject to the prescribed selection criteria. The judgment
further provided for notional promotion for the period
Shakuntala Singh

7

preceding the date on which the applicant actually assumed
the higher responsibilities, with actual benefits admissible
from the date of such assumption. Accordingly, the applicant’s
entitlement has to be determined in accordance with the
specific directions contained in the said judgment and the
applicable service rules.
11. The applicant has challenged the pay-fixation orders
dated 05.07.2012 and 13.08.2012, claiming protection of his
pay and stepping up thereof at par with Shri Triveni Yadav in
the T-1 (Dairy Technician) grade. The applicant was granted
notional promotion with effect from 29.03.2006, whereas he
actually joined the higher post on 22.11.2011. The question is
whether, apart from such notional promotion, the applicant
was also entitled to the pay protection and stepping up
claimed by him.
12. From a perusal of the record, it appears that promotion to
the T-1 (Dairy Technician) grade under the 33 ⅓ % quota was
subject to the prescribed eligibility conditions, including the
requisite educational qualification and experience in the
Skilled Support (SS) grade in Dairy. Employees working in
different trades and disciplines in the respondent department
belonged to their respective grades and had separate
seniority in those grades. Consequently, the pay drawn by an
employee before promotion, and the manner in which it was
fixed on promotion, had to be considered in the context of the
applicable rules and the employee’s previous service
position. The mere fact that two employees were promoted
notionally to the same grade with effect from the same date
would not, by itself, establish an entitlement to identical pay.
Shakuntala Singh

8

13. The applicant has contended that, on 29.03.2006, the pay
of Shri Triveni Yadav in the T-1 (Dairy Technician) grade was
fixed at Rs. 7,720/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/-, whereas the
applicant’s pay was fixed at Rs. 7,310/- with Grade Pay of Rs.
2,000/- on the same date. The applicant’s pay-fixation
statement records pay of Rs. 7,310/- with Grade Pay of Rs.
1,800/- with effect from 01.01.2006, and notional fixation at Rs.
7,310/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/- with effect from
29.03.2006. His pay was subsequently fixed at Rs. 7,590/- with
Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/- with effect from 01.07.2007. On the
other hand, the pay-fixation sheet of Shri Triveni Yadav
records pay of Rs. 7,440/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,650/- as on
01.01.2006 and Rs. 7,720/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/- with
effect from 29.03.2006. These entries show that the two
employees had different pay and Grade Pay positions before
the notional promotion. Their respective pay fixation in the
promotional post is to be considered with reference to their
previous service positions and Grade Pay. On that basis, the
pay of Shri Triveni Yadav was fixed at Rs. 7,720/- with Grade
Pay of Rs. 2,000/-. Therefore, the applicant’s pay fixation on
29.03.2006 at Rs. 7,590/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/-, on the
basis of his last pay drawn as on 01.01.2006, i.e. Rs. 7,310/-
with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,800/- is correct and does not suffer
from any error.
14. The pleadings further indicate that the applicant had
earlier been granted the benefit of MACP while working in the
Skilled Support Staff category. The respondents have stated in
their counter affidavit that, upon the applicant’s appointment to
the technical service in the T-1 grade, the benefit of MACP was
withdrawn as the same was not admissible to technical
personnel in the circumstances of the case. They have further
Shakuntala Singh

9

stated that the applicant’s pay was fixed notionally with effect
from 29.03.2006 and that financial benefits were admissible
from the date of his actual joining, i.e., 22.11.2011, relying
upon Fundamental Rule 27. The respondents maintain that the
fixation was made in accordance with the applicable rules and
the judgment passed in O.A. No. 821 of 2006.
15. The applicant, on the other hand, contends that his basic
pay drawn in the lower post ought to have been protected and
that he was entitled to notional annual increments up to the
date of his actual joining, along with the admissible
consequential arrears. The claim for pay protection and
stepping up has to be examined with reference to the
applicable pay-fixation rules, the distinction between the two
employees’ service categories and the specific directions
contained in the earlier judgment. The respondents’ reliance
upon Fundamental Rule 27 does not, by itself, establish either
an automatic entitlement to stepping up of pay or the legality
of every aspect of the disputed fixation. The relevant question
is whether the fixation of the applicant’s pay and the
withdrawal of the MACP benefit were consistent with the rules
applicable to him and the directions of this Tribunal.
16. The applicant has relied upon the judgment in Gurcharan
Singh Grewal and Another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and
Others , (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 578, in support of his claim for pay
parity. The applicability of that decision has to be considered
in the context of the relevant service rules and the factual
circumstances governing the applicant’s pay fixation. Having
considered the rival submissions and the material placed on
record, the applicant has not established that the difference in
pay arose in circumstances requiring his pay to be stepped up
Shakuntala Singh

10

to that of Shri Triveni Yadav or that the respondents’ fixation
was contrary to the applicable rules and the directions
contained in the judgment dated 20.05.2011.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion
that no sufficient ground is made out to interfere with the
impugned orders dated 05.07.2012 and 13.08.2012. The
applicant has failed to establish his entitlement, under the
applicable rules and the earlier judgment of this Tribunal, to
further pay protection, stepping up of pay or consequential
arrears beyond the benefits admissible to him. The Original
Application is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
18. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand
disposed of.

( Manju Pandey ) ( Rajnish Kumar Rai )
Member (A) Member (J)




/Shakuntala/

Shakuntala Singh