Pay fixation in ex-cadre posts: Officiating pay based on substantive pay and applicable rules was upheld.

The applicant, Alex Thomas, initially worked as a Loco Pilot (Passenger) in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- before being selected for the ex-cadre post of Safety Counselor (Loco) with effect from January 21, 2002, in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-

His officiating pay as Safety Counselor was fixed by enhancing his substantive pay (as Loco Pilot) by 30% according to para 924(i)(d) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM)

He was promoted to Loco Pilot (Mail) in the scale of Rs. 6000-9800/- from December 5, 2002.

He opted for pay fixation with effect from June 1, 2003, resulting in his pay being fixed at Rs. 6760/- in the parent cadre, which was then enhanced by 30% to arrive at an officiating pay of Rs. 8788/- as Safety Counselor from June 1, 2003, in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-

The applicant's pay in the cadre post of Loco Pilot (Mail) was placed in the higher pay scale PB-2 Rs. 9300-34800+GP4200 at Rs. 15130+GP4200 with effect from January 1, 2006, under the Railway Service (Revised Pay) Rules 2008

He contended that his option was not applicable to the ex-cadre pay or pay scale of Safety Counselor

The 2nd respondent, instead of enhancing his substantive pay by 30% for the Safety Counselor post, revised the existing officiating pay using fixation tables, which the applicant disputed as having no provision or option from him

Representations made by the applicant were rejected

The respondents contended that the pay of the applicant in the revised pay scale (6th CPC) was fixed at Rs. 15530 + GP Rs. 4200 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and not Rs. 15130 + GP Rs. 4200

They also argued that the 30% enhancement for fixed posts under para 924 of IREM was only for the first instance, which was wrongly applied more than once in the applicant's case

The respondents contended that the applicant's pay in the officiating capacity as Safety Counselor (ex-cadre) was fixed by taking the pay drawn as on June 1, 2005, in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 6500-10500, after allowing an additional increment as permitted under RBE No. 40/2012, and by granting Grade Pay Rs. 4600 in Pay Band-2, in lieu of Grade Pay Rs. 4200/-

They also highlighted that the applicant was extended the benefits of RBE No. 226/2009 with effect from January 1, 2006, as per Memorandum No.V/P .524/VI/RG/Fixation(Pilot) dated October 18, 2016 (Annexure-A3)

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to have his pay re-fixed in the 6th CPC as Loco Pilot (Mail) with cumulative effect beyond July 1, 2006

2. Whether the applicant is eligible to have his officiating pay as Safety Counselor on January 1, 2006, fixed at 30% above his substantive pay and progressed till October 1, 2009, with all attendant benefits

3. Whether the order at Annexure A3 Memorandum should be set aside and re-issued correctly

The court primarily applied paragraph 924(1)(d) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM)

which specifies the conditions for enhancing substantive pay by 30% when fixing pay in stationary/ex-cadre posts.

It also considered the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 (RBE No.103/2008), particularly Rule 3(2) defining "existing scale" for an employee in an officiating capacity as of January 1, 2006, and Rule 5 regarding exercising options to retain pay in the existing scale

The court also relied on Rule 7(1)(A) of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008

which stipulates that pay in the pay band/pay scale is determined by multiplying the existing basic pay as on January 1, 2006, by a factor of 1.86 and rounding off the resultant figure to the next multiple of 10.

The court also considered RBE No. 229/2006

RBE No. 40/2012

and RBE No. 226/2009 regarding pay fixation and Grade Pay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, while working as Safety Counselor, had already received the benefit of a corresponding change in officiating pay when his parent cadre pay increased, noting that the pay scale of his substantive post was never higher than his officiating post

The respondents' contention that the 30% enhancement under IREM para 924(1)(d) is for the "first instant" only, and was applied incorrectly multiple times, was implicitly accepted as part of their reasoning that the initial fixation was erroneous

The Tribunal agreed with the respondents that the applicant's pay as Safety Counselor (ex-cadre) was correctly fixed by taking the pay drawn as on June 1, 2005, in the pre-revised scale, allowing for an additional increment as per RBE No. 40/2012, and granting Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- in Pay Band-2 in lieu of Rs. 4200/-

This indicates that the established rules for pay fixation under the 6th CPC and specific Railway regulations were followed, thus justifying the respondents' actions and effectively refuting the applicant's claim that his option was not applicable to the ex-cadre pay

The Tribunal also noted that the stipulation in Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008, clause 7(1)(A)(i), regarding pay determination by multiplying the existing basic pay by 1.86 and rounding off, had been complied with

It held that there was no violation of the Rules on the part of the respondents and found no merit in the applicant's arguments

Consequently, the reliefs sought by the applicant, including the re-fixation of pay and setting aside of Annexure A3, were denied.

No costs were awarded