Notional Pay Fixation Entitles Arrears from Date of Filing OA.

The applicants are retired Stenographers who previously filed O.A. No. 280 of 2016 before this Tribunal, seeking the upgrading of Stenographer Grade III to Grade II with effect from 01.01.1986, and the replacement of their pay scale with Rs.1640-2900/- in line with an OM dated 06.02.1989.

In their counter to O.A. No. 280/2016, the respondents stated that "the case of similarly placed persons will be considered after the outcome of the Review Petition is known".

This Tribunal allowed O.A. No. 280/2016 on 02.02.2018.

When the respondents failed to implement the orders, the applicants filed Contempt Petition No. 79/2018 on 16.08.2018.

Following this, the respondents issued orders on 27.12.2018 for implementation.

Subsequently, the respondents filed a Compliance Affidavit stating partial compliance, mentioning that re-fixation of pay was done 'notionally' from 01.01.1986 in the pay scale of Rs.1640-60-2600-EB-175-2900/-.

However, they argued that because the applicants had retired before filing the O.A. (11.03.2016), they were not entitled to actual benefits as per Rule 33 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 & Rule 9(21)(a)(i) of Fundamental Rules, and that pension is fixed based on the last pay actually drawn, not "notional pay fixation".

The Review Petition No. 140/2010 in O.A. No. 475/1998, which the respondents were awaiting, was dismissed by the High Court of Orissa in March 2018, a fact not disclosed by the respondents to this Tribunal initially.

The applicants contended that the respondents had previously promised to extend benefits to similarly placed persons after the Review Petition's outcome.

The Contempt Petition was closed on 01.11.2021, with the Tribunal stating that the order had been complied with.

The applicants then filed the present OA, citing their continuous representations for upgradation and pay fixation, and the fact that a similar case (O.A. No. 631/2019 before CAT Bangalore) also resulted in a favorable order.

Whether the applicants are entitled to the benefit of pay fixation from 01.01.1986 on a notional basis for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

Whether the impugned proceedings dated 12.03.2024, disposing of the representation on the lines of Office Letter dated 30.09.2020, should be set aside.

Whether the respondents should be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 from 01.01.1986 on a notional basis, as ordered in O.A. No. 280/2016 and O.A. 631 of 2019.

Whether the applicants are entitled to arrears of pay from 11.03.2016 (the date of filing O.A. No. 280/2016).

The court primarily relied on its previous order in O.A. No. 280/2016 dated 02.02.2018, which directed the upgrading of applicants to Stenographer Grade II and granted them the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/-, with benefits of pay fixation from 01.01.1986 on a notional basis for pensionary benefits, and arrears from the date of filing the OA, i.e., 11.03.2016.

The court also invoked the principle of extending benefits to similarly placed employees without compelling them to approach the court, citing an Hon’ble Supreme Court ruling to this effect.

The respondents' contention was based on Rule 33 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 & Rule 9(21)(a)(i) of Fundamental Rules, arguing that pension is fixed on actual pay drawn, not notional pay.

The "Doctrine of Res-Judicata" was also raised by the respondents, citing *Satyadhan Goshal v/s Deorajin Debi*.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had misinterpreted its earlier order in O.A. No. 280/2016, specifically regarding the payment of arrears.

Despite the previous order allowing pay fixation from 01.01.1986 on a notional basis for pensionary benefits and arrears from 11.03.2016, the respondents argued that because the applicants retired prior to 2016, they were not entitled to actual benefits.

The Tribunal explicitly rejected this argument, stating that retirement prior to the filing date "does not disqualify the applicants from receiving the arrears from 10.03.2016".

The Tribunal also highlighted the respondents' previous commitment to consider "similarly placed persons" after the Review Petition's outcome, which they had failed to honor after the petition's dismissal in March 2018.

The non-disclosure of the Review Petition's dismissal to the Tribunal further undermined the respondents' position.

The Tribunal referenced the principle that benefits should be extended to other similarly placed employees to avoid further litigation, noting that if this had been done initially, the issue of "notional pay fixation" would not have arisen in this context.

The respondents’ argument of *res judicata* was implicitly rejected as the current OA seeks to enforce the previous order correctly, not relitigate the same claims.

The Tribunal held that the pay fixation of the applicants on a notional basis must be done from 01.01.1986, and their pensionary benefits should be calculated based on this pay fixation.

The applicants are entitled to the grant of the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- from 01.01.1986, with this revised pay being notional from 01.01.1986 to 11.03.2016.

Critically, the Tribunal ordered that the arrears would be paid from 11.03.2016 onwards, explicitly rejecting the respondents' interpretation that prior retirement disqualified them from receiving these arrears.

There was no order as to costs.