Failure to exercise an offered FR 22(1)(a)(1) option bars subsequent pay refixation.

The applicant, appointed as Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police on 03.10.1980 and promoted as Head Constable (Executive) on 06.06.1991, had his pay fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(1) and received subsequent increments accordingly.

After disciplinary proceedings and related litigation, his period of suspension from 29.11.2000 to 12.03.2001 was treated as spent on duty pursuant to the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated 31.05.2007.

On completion of 24 years of service, the applicant was granted the second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme with effect from 03.10.2004, and his pay was fixed at Rs.4,700/-.

He contended that the respondents failed to provide him the option under FR 22(1)(a)(1), resulting in fixation of his next increment from 01.10.2005 instead of 01.06.2005 and consequential financial loss vis-à-vis his juniors.

The applicant’s representation dated 21.02.2013 was considered pursuant to directions in O.A. No.1811/2014, but was rejected by order dated 03.11.2014.

He therefore sought re-fixation of pay, consequential increments, arrears and other benefits.

The respondents maintained that the applicant had been given an opportunity to exercise the prescribed option, but did not exercise it; consequently, his pay and increment were correctly regulated.

Whether the applicant was afforded the option contemplated under FR 22(1)(a)(1) at the time of fixation of his pay on grant of the second ACP financial upgradation?

Whether the applicant was entitled to fresh exercise of the option, re-fixation of pay and consequential increments and arrears on the ground that the option had not been properly provided?

Whether the applicant’s pay had been incorrectly fixed from 03.10.2004, with his next increment wrongly postponed to 01.10.2005?

The Tribunal applied FR 22(1)(a)(1), which governs fixation of pay upon promotion or appointment to a post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance and contemplates an employee’s option regarding the date and manner of pay fixation.

The Tribunal also considered the ACP Scheme under which the applicant received his second financial upgradation after completing 24 years of service.

The applicant relied on Inspector Aas Mohammad v. Commissioner of Police, O.A. No.1121/2011, and SI Daya Chand (Retd.) v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(C) No.10940/2019, concerning the requirement to provide an option under FR 22, as well as Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, regarding continuing causes of action arising from incorrect pay fixation.

The Tribunal examined the order dated 14.08.2008 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Police and found that it expressly provided an option under FR 22(1)(a)(1) to all Delhi Police officials receiving ACP benefits.

The applicant’s name appeared at serial no. 29 in that order, establishing that the option was available to him before fixation of his pay.

Since the applicant did not submit any written or formal option, the respondents were entitled to determine his pay on the basis of the available service record.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found no procedural or substantive infirmity in the respondents’ decision and held that the applicant could not seek a fresh option or consequential re-fixation after failing to exercise the option when it was made available.

The pay fixation and consequential fixation of the next increment were therefore not interfered with.

The Original Application was dismissed for being devoid of merit; all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.