Pay fixation in merged cadres cannot be denied on grounds of absence of direct recruitment element.

The applicant, a retired Senior Accounts Officer, passed the Junior Accounts Officer (JAO) Examination in 1993 and was promoted to the post of JAO on 03.07.2008

On 25.06.2009, the Department of Posts upgraded and merged the pre-revised pay scales of JAO and Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) into a common Pay Band (PB-2) with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800

Following his voluntary retirement in 2017, the applicant sought a pay refixation in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 7,500–12,000 effective from his promotion date (03.07.2008)

He relied on the precedent set by the CAT Ernakulam Bench in K.T. Joseph v. Union of India, which was upheld by the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court

The respondents resisted the claim, contending that the K.T. Joseph judgment was applicable only in personam and that the entry pay provisions did not apply to the Postal Accounts cadre as it lacks an element of direct recruitment

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to pay fixation in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 7,500–12,000 with corresponding revision in PB-2 + GP Rs. 4,800 effective from the date of his promotion to JAO

2. Whether the benefit of the judgment in K.T. Joseph v. Union of India is restricted in personam or applies to similarly situated employees in the Postal Department

The Tribunal primarily applied the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, specifically regarding the merger of Section Officer/JAO posts with AAO posts

It relied on the principle established in K.T. Joseph v. Union of India, which mandated that JAOs, upon merger with AAOs, are entitled to have their pay reckoned against the higher pre-revised scale of Rs. 7,500–12,000

The Tribunal invoked the doctrine from Kamlakar and Ors. v. Union of India, which prohibits differential treatment between direct recruits and promotees within the same cadre

It also referenced Article 14 of the Constitution of India to strike down discriminatory pay clarifications

The Tribunal found that the legal issue was res integra (already decided) by the Ernakulam Bench and superior courts

It reasoned that since the post of JAO was merged with AAO, and the revised scale for that merged post was established as Rs. 7,500–12,000, the applicant’s pay must be fixed at the minimum of that scale (Rs. 7,500) as of his promotion date

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' defense that the K.T. Joseph ruling was only in personam, noting that the Department of Posts' clarification dated 29.09.2022—which denied the benefit because the cadre lacked direct recruitment—was discriminatory and violative of Article 14

The court emphasized that JAOs in the Postal Department cannot be treated differently from those in other departments simply because of the recruitment method, as once employees are in the same cadre, "birth marks" or origins of appointment are irrelevant for pay parity

The respondents were directed to issue fresh fixation orders and pay all consequential arrears to the applicant within two months of receiving the order

No order was made as to costs