Pay revision requires calculating advance increments using revised scale percentages rather than adding pre-revised absolute amounts.

Respondent No. 1, a person with 86% locomotor disability, was appointed by the Appellants as Deputy Manager (Marketing) on 13.07.2007 under a Special Recruitment Drive.

His appointment letter specified a pay scale of ₹8,600-250-14,600/- with five additional increments, resulting in a fixed Basic Pay of ₹9,850/- per month.

Following a general pay revision effective from 01.01.2007, the relevant pay scale was revised to ₹16,400-3%-40,500/-.

The Appellants fixed Respondent No. 1’s revised Basic Pay at ₹17,650/- by adding the absolute value of the old increments (₹1,250) to the new minimum (₹16,400).

Respondent No. 1 contended that the five increments should be calculated as 3% cumulative increments on the revised base, totaling ₹19,020/-.

A Single Judge allowed Respondent No. 1’s Writ Petition, directing the Appellants to revise the pay to ₹19,020/-.

The Appellants challenged this via the present Letters Patent Appeal.

1. Whether the five advance increments granted at the time of appointment formed part of the Basic Pay or were merely "additional pay" for the purpose of pay revision.

2. Whether Clauses 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of the Office Order dated 04.05.2009, which provided for a flat additional pay of ₹1,250/-, were applicable to Respondent No. 1's pay fixation.

3. Whether the revised Basic Pay should be calculated by adding the old increment value or by applying the 3% increment rate stipulated in the revised pay scale.

The court applied the principles of contractual interpretation regarding Appointment Letters and Addendums which stipulated "Basic Pay" inclusive of increments.

It further interpreted the Office Order dated 04.05.2009, specifically Clauses 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, regarding pay fixation for executives appointed after 01.01.2007.

The court relied on the principle of pay parity and consistency in the application of revised Pay Scales (₹16,400-3%-40,500/-) as implemented across Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs).

The Court observed that Respondent No. 1’s initial Basic Pay of ₹9,850/- was explicitly fixed by including five advance increments into the base amount, meaning these increments were an integral part of his "Basic Pay" from inception.

Consequently, the Court found that Clause 2.2.1 of the Office Order did not apply because Respondent No. 1 was not appointed at the "minimum" of the pre-revised scale.

Similarly, Clause 2.2.2 was held inapplicable as it contemplated "additional pay" rather than increments already subsumed into Basic Pay.

The Court reasoned that the Appellants’ method was mathematically inconsistent; they had erroneously conflated the absolute value of increments from an obsolete scale (₹1,250) with the new scale.

The Court held that since the revised scale mandated annual increments at 3%, the five advance increments must also be calculated at 3% of the revised base (₹16,400), totaling ₹19,020/-.

This approach ensured parity with other PSUs that had correctly implemented the revision.

The Court upheld the direction to the Appellants to revise Respondent No. 1’s Basic Pay to ₹19,020/- per month effective from 13.07.2007.

The Appellants were ordered to grant all consequential benefits arising from this revision.

No order as to costs was made.