An unauthorised pay-scale enhancement cannot be retained under FR 23 upon regular promotion.

The applicant, initially appointed as Accounts Assistant in 1985 and promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer in 1991, was promoted on an ad hoc basis as Accounts Officer in 1996 and regularised with effect from 01.09.2009.

The CPCB’s 104th Board Meeting dated 27.06.1996 resolved to enhance the Accounts Officer’s pay scale from Rs.2375–3500 to Rs.3000–4500, subsequently revised to Rs.10,000–15,200.

On that basis, the applicant’s pay was fixed in the higher scale from 14.01.1999 and, following the Sixth Central Pay Commission, in Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of Rs.6,600.

Upon his regularisation as Accounts Officer, the CPCB refixed his pay in the lower scale of Rs.9,300–34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600, with effect from 01.09.2009.

His appeal and subsequent review petitions were rejected, culminating in the impugned order dated 16.02.2017.

The applicant challenged the reduction, relying principally on the CPCB resolution, the earlier pay-fixation orders, and his alleged right under Fundamental Rule 23 to retain the higher pay and Grade Pay.

1. Whether the CPCB was competent to enhance the pay scale of the existing post of Accounts Officer from Rs.2375–3500 to Rs.3000–4500 by Resolution No.104 dated 27.06.1996 without amending the applicable service regulations and obtaining Central Government approval.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled under FR 23 to retain the higher pay scale and Grade Pay of Rs.6,600 allegedly granted to him pursuant to the CPCB resolution and earlier pay-fixation orders.

3. Whether the decision of the Delhi High Court in Nain Singh v. CPCB, W.P.(C) No.12054/2015, required grant of similar relief to the applicant.

The Tribunal applied Section 12(3A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, under which the method of recruitment and conditions of service, including scales of pay, are to be determined by regulations and, in the case of the Central Board, require approval of the Central Government.

Clause 6 and Schedule I, Entry 15, of the CPCB (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers and Other Employees other than Member Secretary) Regulations, 1995 prescribed the Accounts Officer’s pay scale as Rs.2375–3500.

Rule 8 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975 empowered the CPCB to create or abolish posts, subject to Central Government sanction for posts above the prescribed pay limit, but did not authorise unilateral alteration of the pay scale of an existing post.

FR 23 permits an employee to retain the old pay when the time-scale of a post is revised, but it does not protect retention of a pay scale granted contrary to the governing statutory service regulations.

The Tribunal found that the 1995 Regulations expressly prescribed the Accounts Officer’s pay scale as Rs.2375–3500 and that no amended regulation or documentary evidence of Central Government approval for the 1996 enhancement had been produced.

Since Section 12(3A) required changes in scales of pay to be made through duly approved regulations, the CPCB’s resolution could not validly alter the scale of an existing post.

Rule 8 did not assist the applicant because it concerned creation and abolition of posts, not variation of the pay scale of an existing post.

Consequently, the higher scale and Grade Pay of Rs.6,600 reflected in the earlier pay-fixation order were treated as having been granted irregularly.

FR 23 could not be invoked to preserve an unlawful or unauthorised benefit, and the applicant therefore had no enforceable right to retain it.

The Tribunal also held that the Nain Singh decision was distinguishable on facts and did not determine the issue of the CPCB’s statutory competence to revise the pay scale.

The applicant was therefore not entitled under FR 23 to retain the higher pay scale or Grade Pay of Rs.6,600.

The OA was dismissed for want of merit, with no order as to costs; all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.