Pay fixation must distinguish between post upgradation and scale merger under CCS (Revised Pay) Rules.

The applicants are Junior Engineers in the Public Works Department (PWD), Puducherry

Following the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations, the Government of Puducherry upgraded the post of Assistant Engineer (previously in the pay scale of Rs. 6500–10500) to the pre-revised scale of Rs. 7450–11500, corresponding to Pay Band-2 (Rs. 9300–34800) with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 effective from 01.01.2006

The applicants alleged that the respondents erroneously fixed their basic pay at Rs. 7300 instead of the Rs. 7450 minimum and denied them the benefit of "bunching"—the granting of one increment for every two stages in the existing scale—contrary to Rule 7(1)(A) and Note 2A of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008

The applicants contended the respondents incorrectly applied provisions related to the "merger of pay scales" (Note 2B/Illustration 4B) instead of "upgradation of posts" (Note 2A/Illustration 4A)

1. Whether the pay fixation of the applicants is governed by Note 2A (upgradation of posts) or Note 2B (merger of pay scales) of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the benefit of "bunching" increments for pay fixation in the revised pay structure effective from 01.01.2006

The court applied Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, which dictates the method for pay fixation in the revised pay band by multiplying existing basic pay by a factor of 1.86

It specifically examined Note 2A, which applies to "upgradation of posts" (referencing Illustration 4A), and Note 2B, which applies to the "merger of pay scales" (referencing Illustration 4B)

The "bunching" principle under Rule 7 provides that where pay fixation results in government servants from two or more consecutive stages being fixed at the same stage in the revised pay band, one increment shall be given for every two stages so bunched

The court also noted the precedent set by the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 141 of 2012, which held that bunching benefits must be extended in cases of post upgradation

The Tribunal analyzed the distinction between "upgradation" and "merger" as defined under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules. Note 2A is the operative provision when a post is upgraded per the 6th CPC recommendations, whereas Note 2B applies to the merger of existing scales

The applicants argued that their transition from the Rs. 6500–10500 scale to the Rs. 7450–11500 scale constituted an upgradation of the post

The respondents argued that bunching only applies when multiple consecutive stages are brought to the same stage in the revised structure and that the applicants had already received financial benefits under the ACP scheme

However, the Tribunal observed that the respondents failed to provide a clear and conclusive position regarding whether the revision was formally classified as an "upgradation" or a "merger"

Due to this ambiguity in the respondents' administrative application of the rules, the Tribunal found it impossible to determine the merits of the specific pay fixation at this stage

The court held that the respondents must determine whether Note 2A or Note 2B is applicable to the applicants' specific circumstances in light of the rules and observations made by the Tribunal

The Original Applications were disposed of with a direction for fresh consideration, and no order was made as to costs