PAY FIXATION UPON VOLUNTARY REDEPLOYMENT TO LOWER POST PROTECTS PREVIOUS PAY SCALE UNDER RELEVANT SERVICE RULES

The applicant was appointed as a Demonstrator at the Indian Military Academy (IMA) on October 10, 1983

On May 3, 2010, the respondents declared the post of Demonstrator abolished and the applicant surplus

Following litigation before the Delhi High Court (WPC No. 6868/2011), the court directed respondents to offer the applicant an option to either find a Demonstrator post elsewhere or accept a lower post at IMA

The applicant opted for a lower post and was adjusted as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on December 19, 2013

Following the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations, the respondents re-fixed his pay in PB-1 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 1900, using a 2.57 multiplication factor effective January 1, 2016

The applicant challenged the communication dated October 18, 2025 (and an underlying advice dated January 3, 2025) seeking the grant of a higher pay scale under the 7th CPC

1. Whether the pay fixation carried out by the respondents following the applicant's voluntary acceptance of a lower post was irregular or contrary to statutory rules

Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, specifically Rule 7(8) and Rule 7(10), which dictate the methodology for fixing pay in the revised pay structure

Administrative principle that an applicant must provide specific grounds to demonstrate how a pay fixation order is "regular or contrary to the rule position" to maintain a challenge against it

The Tribunal observed that the applicant had voluntarily accepted the lower post of LDC in December 2013 after being declared surplus and following the High Court's directions

Consequently, the respondents fixed his pay in the LDC rank effective January 1, 2016, applying the standard 7th CPC multiplication factor of 2.57 to the basic pay

The Tribunal noted that the applicant failed to challenge the fundamental basis of this re-fixation as communicated on September 11, 2024

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide any specific legal grounds or evidence to show how the pay fixation violated Rule 7(8) or 7(10) of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2016

Without a specific demonstration of irregularity or illegality, the mere dissatisfaction with the pay scale did not constitute a valid cause of action

The holding established that the applicant failed to provide specific grounds against the IMA’s decision. However, the Tribunal granted the applicant liberty to file a fresh OA supported by sufficient grounds and documentation if deemed appropriate