Ex-servicemen of appropriate trade are eligible for promotion without redundant training and entitled to statutory pay protection.

The applicant, an ex-serviceman, was re-employed in the Indian Air Force (IAF) Fire Fighting Services as a Leading Hand Fireman (LHF) on September 21, 2012

Upon completing eight years of regular service on September 20, 2020, he sought promotion to the post of Station Officer and the benefit of pay protection under relevant DoPT Office Memorandums (OMs)

The respondents denied pay protection, asserting that DoPT OM dated August 5, 2020, applies only to technical resignations and not re-employed ex-servicemen

The respondents denied the promotion on the grounds that the applicant had not completed a mandatory training course prescribed under Recruitment Rules S.R.O. 11 of 2020

The applicant challenged the impugned order dated January 25, 2023, which rejected his claims

1. Whether the applicant, as a re-employed ex-serviceman, is entitled to pay protection and re-fixation of pay under the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986

2. Whether the applicant is eligible for promotion to the post of Station Officer without undergoing the mandatory training course prescribed in S.R.O. 11, given his prior military qualifications and status as an ex-serviceman of the "appropriate trade"

The Tribunal primarily applied the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986, specifically Para 7 regarding pay fixation

Recruitment Rules S.R.O. 14 (2013) and S.R.O. 11 (2020), which govern the eligibility for the post of Station Officer

The Tribunal followed the precedent set in Dharmvir Singh Bhardwaj v. UOI Ors. (OA No. 533/2018), which held that pay fixation for re-employed pensioners must be done judiciously in conjunction with DoPT instructions

Additionally, it applied principles of statutory interpretation from Prenn v. Simmonds and Surendra Kumar Verma v. CGIT, emphasizing purposive construction over literal interpretation to remedy administrative "mischief"

Regarding the promotion, the Tribunal observed that while S.R.O. 11 requires a specific training course, the applicant had already completed eight years of service and possessed a Diploma in Fire Fighting obtained through the IAF and IGNOU

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant fell under the category of "Ex-serviceman of appropriate trade" (Clause 7), he had already acquired the necessary expertise during military service; thus, requiring him to repeat the same training would be redundant and arbitrary

On the issue of pay fixation, the Tribunal found the respondents' denial to be "cryptic" and lacking a judicious basis

By applying the ratio in Dharmvir Singh Bhardwaj, the Tribunal determined that re-employed pensioners are entitled to have their pay re-fixed according to the 1986 Orders and relevant nodal department instructions, rejecting the respondents' narrow interpretation of the 2020 DoPT OM

The Tribunal held that the applicant is eligible for promotion consideration without repeating the trade course and is entitled to a review of his pay fixation

The respondents were directed to: (i) consider the applicant for promotion to Station Officer if he meets other eligibility criteria, and (ii) re-fix his pay and release arrears within a strictly defined timeline of two to four months

No costs were awarded