Promotion between posts with merged identical pay scales precludes additional increment under FR 22(I)(a)(1).

The applicant, while serving as a Superintendent in the Ministry of Finance, was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer (AO) in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500–10,500/- via an establishment order dated 31.07.2002

Prior to this promotion, the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) had merged the pay scales of Office Superintendent (OS) and Administrative Officer into a single scale of Rs. 6,500–10,500/- effective 01.01.1996

The applicant sought pay fixation under Fundamental Rule (FR) 22(I)(a)(1), which provides for an additional increment upon promotion to a post involving higher responsibilities

The respondents rejected this claim via communication dated 18.01.2017, asserting that because the pay scales were merged and the roles were deemed similar, no additional increment was admissible

The applicant challenged this rejection, seeking arrears of Rs. 89,589/- with interest

Whether the promotion from Office Superintendent to Administrative Officer in the year 2002 entitled the applicant to pay fixation benefits (additional increment) under FR 22(I)(a)(1) despite the merger of the pay scales of both posts

Whether the roles and responsibilities of the Administrative Officer post involved an "assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance" compared to the Office Superintendent post to justify the benefit of FR 22(I)(a)(1)

The court primarily applied Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1), which grants an additional increment only when a promotion involves the assumption of duties of greater importance

It contrasted this with FR 22(I)(a)(2), which governs pay fixation when an appointment does not involve such an assumption of higher responsibilities, limiting the pay to a stage equal to or next above the previous pay

The court also relied on the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) clarification dated 24.07.2006, which stipulated that since the scales for OS and AO were merged by the 5th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.1996, the benefit of fixation under FR 22(I)(a)(1) cannot be granted

The Tribunal reasoned that for the benefit of FR 22(I)(a)(1) to apply, there must be a clear element of promotion involving higher responsibilities

In this case, the 5th CPC had already merged the pay scales of the feeder post (OS) and the promotional post (AO) into one identical scale

Furthermore, the Ministry of Finance's clarification dated 08.10.2002 indicated that the roles of OS and AO were the same, leading to the re-designation of the OS post

The Tribunal found that the promotion was essentially a re-designation within the same pay scale and did not involve the assumption of duties of "greater importance"

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicant’s pay was correctly governed by FR 22(I)(a)(2), which applies to appointments not involving higher responsibilities

The Tribunal concluded that the Ministry’s 2006 clarification was consistent with the statutory rules and the nature of the posts after the 5th CPC implementation

The court found no infirmity or illegality in the respondents' decision to decline the arrears and the increment

The Original Application (O.A. No. 107/2017) was dismissed on merits

No order as to costs was made