Administrative lapse in omitting option clause for pay fixation entitles employee to retrospective benefit of FR 22(1)(a)(i).

The applicant, Shiv Sharan Singh, was appointed as a Regular Mazdoor in 1992 and promoted to Telecom Mechanic in 2001

He discovered in 2012 that a junior colleague, Shri Rajjan Lal Sharma (promoted in 2003), was drawing a higher salary because the junior had exercised an option under FR 22 to fix his pay from the date of his next increment, whereas the applicant’s pay was fixed from the date of promotion

The applicant’s initial challenges were dismissed by the department, leading to O.A. No. 1605/2014, where the Tribunal ruled (on 23.05.2023) that the applicant was deprived of exercising his option due to administrative lapse (the promotion order lacked the option clause) and directed the respondents to treat his representation as a timely exercise of option

Despite this, the respondents issued a fresh order on 22.11.2023 again rejecting the claim on the grounds of a 9-year delay and non-exercise of option

The applicant challenged this 2023 order in the current O.A.

1. Whether the respondents’ impugned order dated 22.11.2023 violated the specific judicial directions issued by the Tribunal in the earlier O.A. No. 1605/2014

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to pay re-fixation and consequential benefits at par with his junior by treating his option as exercised within the prescribed time

Fundamental Rule 22 (1)(a)(i), which allows a promoted employee to opt for pay fixation either from the date of promotion or from the date of their next increment in the lower grade

Office Memorandum No. 13/2/2007-Pay-I, which mandates that the option clause must be incorporated into promotion/appointment orders to prevent delays caused by administrative lapses

Principle of judicial discipline, requiring administrative authorities to strictly comply with final judicial pronouncements

The Tribunal observed that in the previous litigation (O.A. 1605/2014), it was already determined that the department failed to include the mandatory option clause in the applicant's promotion order, constituting an administrative lapse

The court found that the respondents, in their impugned order dated 22.11.2023, completely ignored the Tribunal's specific mandate to "treat the option of the applicant within time"

Instead of performing the re-fixation as directed, the respondents reiterated the same justification (delay of 9 years and non-exercise of option) that the Tribunal had previously discarded

The court determined this was a failure to act in accordance with judicial directions and reflected a clear non-application of mind, as the department cannot take a stand contrary to a binding court order

It held that the respondents failed to comply with the earlier binding judgment dated 23.05.2023

The Tribunal directed the respondents to re-decide the case strictly in accordance with the previous directions—treating the option as timely—within two months, and to grant the applicant all consequential benefits, including pay re-fixation, arrears of increment, pension, and gratuity