Merged-scale pay must be refixed using the highest scale’s minimum, subject to the Supreme Court’s final decision.

The applicant joined the respondents’ department in 1970 and was promoted to Supervisor B/S-II in April 2005 in the pre-revised scale of ₹5,000–8,000.

He retired on 31 January 2011.

Following implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the scales of ₹5,000–8,000, ₹5,500–9,000 and ₹6,500–10,500 were merged into Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of ₹4,200.

The applicant’s pay was fixed by reference to his actual pay in the ₹5,000–8,000 scale; he claimed instead that fixation should treat ₹6,500 as his existing basic pay and apply the 1.86 multiplier, producing ₹12,090 from 1 January 2006.

Relying on decisions of the CAT Ernakulam Bench and Chandigarh Bench, he sought refixation and consequential benefits.

The respondents opposed the claim, including on limitation grounds, noting that the applicant had retired in 2011 but filed the O.A. in 2024.

Whether the applicant was entitled to refixation of pay by treating ₹6,500 as his existing basic pay on 1 January 2006 in the merged pay scale, with consequential benefits.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for an application before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, read with the pari materia CDS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, and the principle that, where pre-revised scales are merged, the minimum of the highest scale being merged is to be extended as the existing basic pay for the purpose of fixation.

It relied on All India Naval Clerks Association & Others v. Union of India & Others, O.A. No. 180/569/2014 (CAT Ernakulam Bench, 3 April 2018), upheld by the Kerala High Court on 4 January 2023.

It relied on Arvind Kumar v. Union of India & Others, O.A. No. 060/524/2018 (CAT Chandigarh Bench, 1 June 2018).

The latter matter was subject to the outcome of proceedings pending before the Supreme Court in the Naval Clerks Association case.

The Tribunal found the applicant similarly situated to the employees who had received relief in the earlier CAT decisions.

Applying the principle adopted in those cases, it held that the applicant should receive the benefit of merger by treating ₹6,500 as his existing basic pay on 1 January 2006.

It considered that denying him the same relief would result in unequal treatment and conflict with judicial discipline and consistency.

The Tribunal did not separately analyse or expressly determine the respondents’ limitation objection.

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant’s pay by treating ₹6,500 as his existing basic pay on 1 January 2006 and to grant consequential benefits.

The relief is subject to, and will be governed by, the Supreme Court’s final decision in the All India Naval Clerks Association proceedings.

No order as to costs was made.