Merger without higher duties attracts pay fixation under FR 23, not promotional fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(i).

The applicants, Senior Audit Officers under the Principal Director of Audit, South Central Railway, had previously served as Audit Officers in Group B.

Following the classification of Senior Audit Officer posts as Group A, the Audit Officer and Senior Audit Officer posts were merged with effect from 20 November 2019, and the applicants were placed in Level 10.

The respondents regulated their pay under Government of India Order (6) below FR 23, read with FR 22(1)(a)(2), rather than granting an additional increment under FR 22(1)(a)(1).

After the first applicant’s representation was rejected, the applicants sought an order quashing the pay-regulation decision and directing fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(1).

The respondents maintained that the merger involved no assumption of higher duties or responsibilities and that the applicants had exercised their pay-fixation options under FR 23.

1. Whether the applicants’ placement as Senior Audit Officers following the merger entitled them to pay fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(1), rather than under FR 23 and FR 22(1)(a)(2).

2. Whether the respondents’ pay-regulation decision was unlawful or arbitrary because the applicants’ posts were reclassified from Group B to Group A and placed in a higher pay level.

FR 23 provides that when the pay of a post changes, its holder is treated as transferred to a new post on the new pay, subject to the prescribed option to retain the old pay; the option, once exercised, is final.

Government of India Order (6) below FR 23 provides that, where a post’s pay scale is revised upwards without assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance, pay fixation is governed by FR 23 and FR 22(1)(a)(2), rather than the promotional fixation provision in FR 22(1)(a)(1).

The Tribunal also noted the 2019 Recruitment Rules and the distinction between promotion to Senior Audit Officer from Assistant Audit Officer and the merger-based placement of existing Audit Officers.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ position that the merger and re-designation did not involve an assumption of greater duties or responsibilities, and that the duties of Audit Officers and Senior Audit Officers were the same.

It therefore treated the applicants’ placement as a merger-related pay change governed by FR 23 and Order (6), not as a promotion warranting fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(1).

The applicants had been given the option of fixation from the merger date or from the date of their next increment, and the Tribunal found that they had exercised their options and received fixation in Level 10.

It further held that the applicants could not claim an additional benefit merely because such a benefit had been available in the prior cadre arrangement.

The OA was dismissed; any miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.