Absorption after the pay-revision date does not alone determine entitlement; the applicable scheme and service terms must be examined.

The applicant, a Deputy Registrar (Establishment) at the Central Agricultural University, Imphal, served on deputation before being absorbed into the University with effect from 1 August 2006.

His pay was initially fixed under the revised pay structure, but was later refixed following an audit report dated 22 October 2013.

He claimed entitlement, under the MHRD scheme dated 31 December 2008, to Pay Band-IV of ₹37,400–67,000 with Grade Pay of ₹8,700 from 1 January 2006 until his retirement on 30 June 2011, and sought consequential pensionary benefits.

He challenged the audit-related order and the University’s communication rejecting his representation

The respondents maintained that he was not a regular University employee on 1 January 2006 and did not meet the prescribed educational qualifications.

Whether the applicant’s deputation service before his absorption on 1 August 2006 could be considered in determining his entitlement, from 1 January 2006, to the higher pay band under the MHRD scheme

Whether the applicant’s qualifications and service status satisfied the applicable conditions for placement in Pay Band-IV, including whether the qualification requirement applied to an existing incumbent

Whether the audit-based pay refixation could stand without a reasoned determination of the scheme’s application and the effect of the applicant’s absorption

The Tribunal considered the MHRD, Department of Higher Education letter dated 31 December 2008, which prescribed the revised pay structure for specified posts, including Deputy Registrar, subject to stated conditions.

It noted that whether prior deputation service may be counted for a particular benefit depends on the applicable rules, scheme and terms of absorption; therefore, *Renu Malik v. Union of India*, (1994) 1 SCC 373, did not by itself determine the applicant’s entitlement.

The Tribunal also held that a qualification prescribed for fresh appointment cannot be treated as automatically applicable to an existing incumbent’s pay revision without examining the relevant provision.

The audit report relied substantially on the applicant’s absorption date, but that fact alone did not resolve his eligibility: the authority also needed to examine the scheme, his status and pay on 1 January 2006, his service in the relevant pre-revised scale, and the terms and effect of his deputation and absorption.

Nor could the applicant’s reliance on *Renu Malik* or the respondents’ qualification objection be treated as conclusive without examining the governing rules and their application to his circumstances.

Because the record did not permit a definitive finding on entitlement, the Tribunal directed reconsideration rather than deciding the pay claim itself.

It directed him to submit a representation with supporting documents within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The competent authority must then consider the applicable MHRD scheme, the applicant’s service and pay history, the legal effect of his deputation and absorption, the audit report, and the qualification issue, and issue a reasoned order within three months of receiving the representation.

The Original Application was disposed of with no order as to costs.