Employees who miss repeated deadlines cannot claim a further opportunity to re-exercise pay-fixation options.

The applicants were employees of ICAR-CPCRI, Regional Station, Krishnapuram.

Applicant No. 1 retired on 31 March 2023 and Applicant No. 2 retired on 30 June 2022.

The Ministry of Finance issued an Office Memorandum dated 4 July 2023, inviting Government employees and pensioners who had missed earlier opportunities to exercise or re-exercise their option for pay fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(1), including alteration of the date of annual increment.

The OM was endorsed by ICAR on 25 July 2023 and by CPCRI on 4 August 2023, with directions for circulation among the concerned offices and sections.

The applicants claimed that they were unaware of the 2023 OM and that it had not been given adequate publicity.

Applicant No. 1 submitted a representation on 2 January 2024 seeking advancement of her increment date from July to January, consequential revision of her third MACP, pension and retirement benefits.

The representation was rejected on 19 March 2024 on the ground that the prescribed period, including extensions, had expired.

Applicant No. 2 had not submitted any representation before approaching the Tribunal.

The applicants therefore sought quashing of the rejection order and consequential monetary and pensionary benefits.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to exercise or re-exercise the option for pay fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(1) after expiry of the time prescribed under the 4 July 2023 OM.

2. Whether the rejection of Applicant No. 1’s belated representation, on the ground that the prescribed period had expired, was arbitrary or legally unsustainable.

3. Whether the applicants were entitled to revision of their increment dates, third MACP, pension and other consequential retirement benefits.

The Tribunal applied FR 22(1)(a)(1), governing fixation of pay on promotion or appointment to a higher post, read with paragraph 7 of the Ministry of Finance’s Office Memorandum dated 28 November 2019.

The 28 November 2019 OM provided an initial opportunity to exercise the relevant option within one month, while the subsequent OM dated 15 April 2021 granted a further three-month opportunity to employees who had failed to exercise the option earlier.

The OM dated 4 July 2023 constituted a further, or third, opportunity for exercise or re-exercise of the option.

The applicable principle was that an employee who failed to exercise the option within the expressly prescribed period, despite repeated opportunities and proper circulation of the OM, could not ordinarily claim a further extension as of right.

The Tribunal held that the applicants’ plea of lack of knowledge of the 2023 OM could not be accepted in the circumstances.

Both applicants had been in service when the earlier OMs dated 28 November 2019 and 15 April 2021 were issued, and they had already failed to exercise the option on those occasions.

The 2023 OM was endorsed by ICAR and CPCRI with directions for circulation, and the record showed that 15 employees and three pensioners of the concerned establishment had exercised the re-option, demonstrating that the OM had in fact reached similarly situated persons.

Since the applicants had missed three successive opportunities, the Tribunal found no justification for granting another opportunity.

Applicant No. 1’s belated representation was therefore validly rejected, while Applicant No. 2’s claim was additionally weakened by his failure to submit any prior representation.

It held that they were not entitled to a further opportunity to exercise or re-exercise the pay-fixation option after expiry of the prescribed period, and that the rejection of Applicant No. 1’s representation was not arbitrary.

The Original Application was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.