Pay fixation for upgraded Nursing posts must follow Rule 7(1)(A) without hypothetical pre-2006 increments.

The applicants, working as Chief Nursing Superintendents in the West Central Railway, were initially appointed as Staff Nurses between 1990 and 1994.

They challenged the respondent department's method of pay fixation following the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) effective January 1, 2006.

The applicants contended that since the pay scale for Nursing Sisters was upgraded from ₹5500-9000 to ₹7500-12000, their pay should have been notionally fixed in the upgraded scale (including increments) before applying the 1.86 multiplication factor.

They relied on a 2018 decision by the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in G. Yesumani v. UOI.

The respondents maintained that pay fixation was correctly performed by multiplying the actual existing basic pay as of January 1, 2006, by 1.86 and adding the Grade Pay, ensuring the result was not less than the minimum of the pay band or the rate for direct recruits.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to have their pay notionally fixed in the upgraded pre-revised scale of ₹7500-12000 prior to applying the 6th CPC multiplication factor for salary revision as of January 1, 2006.

2. Whether the respondents' pay fixation method, based on Rule 7 of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, was legally valid.

Rule 7(1)(A) and Note 2 of R.B.E. 103/2008 (Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008), which prescribes that pay in the revised pay band shall be determined by multiplying the "existing basic pay" as of January 1, 2006, by a factor of 1.86.

Railway Board letter No. PCVI/2020/RU-NFIR/3 dated March 29, 2022, which clarified that the initial pay of a Senior Nursing Superintendent must not be less than ₹17,140, the permissible pay for direct recruitment to the post.

The Tribunal examined the statutory formula under Rule 7(1)(A) of R.B.E. 103/2008, noting that it specifically requires the multiplication of the "existing basic pay" rather than a hypothetical or notionally upgraded pay.

The Tribunal observed that if the resulting figure is less than the minimum of the revised pay band, it is rounded up to the minimum; otherwise, the calculated figure stands.

In the applicants' case, their fixed pay exceeded both the minimum of Pay Band-II (₹13,500) and the mandatory threshold for direct recruits (₹17,140).

The Tribunal rejected the applicants' argument for hypothetical pre-2006 upgrades, stating it is neither "practical nor permissible" under the rules to include salary increments in an upgraded scale prior to the actual date of the scale's implementation (January 1, 2006).

Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.