Promotion involving greater responsibilities attracts FR 22-D increments despite an unchanged pay scale.

The petitioner, a police employee in the Special Armed Force, joined as a Constable on 18 September 1971, was promoted as Head Constable on 6 June 1981, and was promoted as A.S.I./A.P.C. with effect from 15 July 2008. He retired on 31 August 2011.

Before promotion, he was drawing Rs.14,420 in the pay scale of Rs.5,200–20,200. On promotion, the respondents applied Rule 22-D of the M.P. Fundamental Rules and fixed his pay at Rs.14,860 by granting the benefit of an additional increment, since the promotional post carried greater duties and responsibilities although the pay scale remained unchanged.

The pay fixation was approved by the competent authority and the petitioner received the benefit for more than three years. At the time of retirement, the respondents withdrew the benefit and recovered Rs.22,555 from his retiral dues without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner challenged the withdrawal, recovery, and denial of consequential pay and pensionary benefits under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of pay fixation under Rule 22-D(i) of the M.P. Fundamental Rules upon promotion to the post of A.S.I./A.P.C., notwithstanding that the promotional and lower posts carried the same pay scale?

Whether the respondents could withdraw the granted benefit and recover Rs.22,555 from the petitioner’s retiral dues without issuing notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing?

Rule 22-D(i) of the M.P. Fundamental Rules provides that where a government servant is promoted or appointed to a post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance, his initial pay must be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by adding one increment to his pay in the lower post.

The fourth proviso excludes the benefit only where the higher post has an identical pay scale and is distinguished merely by special pay; it does not bar pay fixation where the higher post carries greater duties and responsibilities without merely being distinguished by special pay.

The Court relied on R.S. Sikarwar v. State of M.P., 2004 (3) M.P.L.J. 397, which approved the interpretation adopted in Smt. Kunti Saxena that Rule 22-D(i) could apply even where the lower and higher posts carried the same pay scale, provided the higher post involved greater responsibilities.

Union of India v. Ashoke Kumar Banerjee, (1998) 5 SCC 242, concerning a distinct rule and the impermissibility of granting a second benefit under the same provision, was held distinguishable.

Withdrawal of a monetary benefit already granted and recovery from retiral dues without notice or hearing violates the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner’s promotion to A.S.I./A.P.C. involved assuming duties and responsibilities greater than those attached to the post of Head Constable.

The Court therefore held that the substantive requirement of Rule 22-D(i) was satisfied, and the fact that both posts carried the same pay scale did not defeat the claim because the fourth proviso applied only where the higher post was distinguished by special pay alone.

The pay fixation had been approved by the competent authority and acted upon for over three years. In the absence of any notice, hearing, or stated justification, the respondents could not retrospectively withdraw the benefit or recover the amount from the petitioner’s retiral dues.

The action was consequently contrary both to Rule 22-D(i) and to natural justice.

The withdrawal of the benefit of two increments with effect from 15 July 2008 was quashed, as was the recovery of Rs.22,555 from the petitioner’s retiral benefits.

The respondents were directed to grant the benefit of two annual increments from 15 July 2008, revise the petitioner’s PPO and GPO, and repay the recovered amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of entitlement until actual payment.

The directions were to be complied with within three months; failing compliance, the respondents would be liable to pay interest at 12% per annum on the amount due.