Advance increments for shorthand proficiency must be treated as pay for calculating annual increments.

The Applicant, a Steno Grade I in the Selection Centre South, Bangalore, passed a shorthand speed test at 120 words per minute in 2010 and was granted two advance increments pursuant to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum (OM) dated 07.12.2009

In 2018, his pay was re-fixed under the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) to include a 3% annual increment calculated on these advance increments

However, in December 2022, the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (PCDA) reviewed the service records and determined that advance increments should be treated as a separate element for allowances only and not for calculating annual increments

This led to a downward revision of the Applicant’s pay and an order to recover Rs. 2,32,148/-, of which Rs. 20,000 was deducted before the Applicant approached the Tribunal

1. Whether the advance increments granted to Stenographers for acquiring higher shorthand speed are to be treated as "pay for all purposes," including the calculation of annual increments

2. Whether the respondents were justified in the downward re-fixation of the Applicant's pay and the subsequent recovery of alleged overpayments

The court primarily relied on the DoPT OM dated 07.12.2009, which implemented a Board of Arbitration award stipulating that advance increments for shorthand speed "should be treated as pay for all purposes"

This was supported by subsequent OMs dated 06.12.2012 and 24.07.2020, which reiterated that while such increments remain a separate element until promotion or MACP, they must be counted as pay for all purposes

Furthermore, the court applied the principles established in State of Punjab and Ors v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2014), which prohibits recovery of overpayments from Group C employees

The Tribunal examined the Respondents' contention that advance increments are "pay" only for allowances and not for further increments

It found that the plain language of the relevant OMs—specifically the phrase "pay for all purposes"—does not contain any explicit exclusion or restriction regarding the calculation of annual increments

The court noted that the Respondents failed to pinpoint any rule or instruction that supported their restrictive interpretation

Since the OMs mandate that the increments be treated as pay for "all purposes," the Tribunal held that this necessarily includes the calculation of the 3% annual increment

Regarding the recovery, the Tribunal observed that the Applicant is a Group C employee, making the recovery legally impermissible under the Rafiq Masih precedent, a point the Respondents eventually conceded

It held that the original pay fixation was correct and the downward revision was unjustified

The Respondents were directed to restore the Applicant's original pay fixation and refund the recovered amount of Rs. 20,000 within twelve weeks, failing which the amount would carry interest at the GPF rate