Facts
The petitioner was initially appointed as a Chargeman Grade II (NT/OTS). He later applied through the UPSC and was appointed as a Civilian Officer Grade-II in the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) on December 18, 1991
Source reference: p. 2Following the acceptance of his resignation from the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) in the BRO on February 1, 1994, he returned to his earlier service as Chargeman Grade-II at the Engine Factory, Avadi, as his lien had been retained for two years
Source reference: p. 2-3He retired from service in 2011. In 2012, he filed O.A. No. 128 of 2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking a retrospective pay re-fixation based on Office Memorandums (OMs) dated February 14, 2006, and January 4, 2007
Source reference: p. 2The CAT dismissed the application on April 08, 2015, which the petitioner challenged via this Writ Petition
Source reference: p. 1-2Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pay re-fixation under Fundamental Rule (FR) 15(a) and the associated DOPT Office Memorandums dated 14.02.2006 and 04.01.2007
Source reference: p. 2 / para. 32. Whether the petitioner established a legal right for retrospective pay fixation after a lapse of one year from the date of retirement
Source reference: p. 3 / para. 4-5Law Applied
Fundamental Rule (FR) 15(a), which governs the transfer of a Government servant to a lower post on their own request and the subsequent fixation of pay
Source reference: p. 2-3DOPT Office Memorandums (OM) No. 16/6/2001-Estt.Pay.1 dated 14.02.2006 and 04.01.2007, which provide clarifications on pay protection and fixation for employees seeking transfer to lower posts
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner’s circumstances did not satisfy the criteria of FR 15(a). Although the petitioner was taken back into his original service following his resignation from the BRO, the Court noted that he had secured a fresh appointment in a different service (BRO) via UPSC rather than a simple transfer to a lower post as contemplated by the OMs
Source reference: p. 2-3The Court held that the instructions in the OMs dated 14.02.2006 and 04.01.2007 were inapplicable to his specific trajectory of moving between different services and returning via lien
Source reference: p. 3Additionally, the Court noted a lack of merit in the claim for retrospective fixation, especially considering the petitioner only raised the claim in 2012, a year after his retirement in 2011
Source reference: p. 3Holding
The High Court upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, finding that the petitioner failed to establish any legal right to the relief sought
The Court held that the petitioner did not fall under the ambit of FR 15(a) or the cited OMs. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 3Original Court PDF
S.RamamoorthivsThe Union of India
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in