Reappointment to a higher-responsibility post entitles employees to one notional increment under FR-22(I)(a)(1), countable for MACP.

The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk in the Border Roads Organisation under the General Reserve Engineer Force, challenged the order dated 20 February 2025, by which he was denied one notional increment on his re-appointment/promotion from the post of Pioneer to Lower Division Clerk.

He claimed entitlement to pay fixation under Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1), with effect from his re-appointment on 19 March 2009.

The petitioner relied on the judgment of the High Court of Sikkim dated 17 March 2020 in WP(C) No. 67 of 2017, pursuant to which five similarly situated employees had allegedly received the benefit.

During the proceedings, the respondents informed the Court that the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts had reconsidered the matter and extended the benefit of FR-22(I)(a)(1) to the petitioner, including for Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) purposes.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to one notional increment under FR-22(I)(a)(1) upon his re-appointment/promotion to the post of LDC with effect from 19 March 2009.

Whether the impugned order dated 20 February 2025, which denied the benefit despite its extension to similarly situated employees, was legally sustainable.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to consequential monetary benefits, including arrears of pay, upon grant of the notional increment.

The Court applied Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1), under which pay may be fixed by granting a notional increment when an employee is appointed or re-appointed to a post carrying a higher pay scale and higher duties or responsibilities.

The Court also considered the principle of consistent treatment of similarly situated employees, particularly where the benefit had already been extended pursuant to the judgment of the High Court of Sikkim dated 17 March 2020 in WP(C) No. 67 of 2017.

The respondents’ official communication further recorded that, after deletion of the relevant restrictive clause, an individual who passed the departmental examination could receive the benefit of FR-22(I)(a)(1), and that the benefit would also be counted for MACP purposes.

The petitioner’s claim was founded on the same entitlement that had been recognised for similarly situated employees.

Although the respondents had initially denied the benefit through the order dated 20 February 2025, their subsequent reconsideration resulted in acceptance of the petitioner’s entitlement to one notional increment under FR-22(I)(a)(1), with corresponding recognition for MACP purposes.

In light of this admitted administrative decision, the Court found that the petitioner’s substantive claim had been accepted and that no further issue survived for adjudication.

Consequently, the order denying the benefit could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed.

The Court set aside and quashed the impugned order dated 20 February 2025.

The respondents were directed to grant the petitioner one notional increment under FR-22(I)(a)(1) with effect from 19 March 2009 and to release all consequential monetary benefits, including arrears of pay, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.