Rule 41-C pay fixation turns on last military basic pay, not pension dearness allowance.

The respondent, an Army Havildar discharged from service in 2005, was recruited as a Reserve Police Constable in 2008 against a post reserved for ex-servicemen.

His pay was fixed under Rule 41-C of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR), but the authorities later cancelled the fixation and ordered recovery.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal quashed that cancellation in 2015, and the State did not challenge its order.

Following the respondent’s transfer, his pay was re-fixed at Rs.10,500 in 2018.

In 2022, the authorities again cancelled the re-fixation and ordered recovery, citing the respondent’s failure to give up dearness allowance (DA) received on his military pension.

The Tribunal quashed the 2022 order and directed continuation of the 2018 pay fixation; the State authorities challenged that decision in this writ petition.

Rule 41-C of the KCSR governs pay fixation for specified military personnel re-employed in State civil service. It requires fixation by reference to the pay last drawn in military service, with the relevant pay components taken into account and allowances and pension excluded as provided by the rule; military service does not count toward qualifying service for pension.

In W.P. No. 10222 of 2019, the coordinate Bench held that a revised last-pay certificate must be considered when fixing re-employed military personnel’s pay under Rule 41-C.

The Tribunal’s unchallenged 2015 order had also directed fresh fixation under Rule 41-C and prohibited recovery pursuant to that re-fixation.

The Court found that the 2018 re-fixation followed the Tribunal’s 2015 order and was made under Rule 41-C.

The 2022 cancellation was based on the respondent’s alleged failure to give up DA received on his military pension, but Rule 41-C concerns fixation by reference to military pay and did not empower the State authorities to determine his entitlement to DA or pension benefits from the military authorities.

Any question about his eligibility for those benefits was for the military authorities to decide.

The Court also noted that the Tribunal’s 2015 order had not been challenged and that the coordinate Bench’s ruling supported consideration of the relevant military pay for Rule 41-C fixation.

It dismissed the writ petition, leaving in force the direction to continue the respondent’s salary under the 19 July 2018 re-fixation order.