• Regarding technical resignation

Dear Sir,

I am a railway employee and joined railways in October 2013. I had applied for several jobs before joining. After my initial training was over and I got posted I intimated the same to my department. I am an ESM and have served indian navy for 10 years thus I sm entitled to pay protection I.e. my last badic pay drawn from navy. Now I got selected in some other centre government department at lower grade pay. I have already put in 2 years of service in railways including 1 year training.

Now I want to resign from railway to join new job if I apply for normal resignation I'll have to pay cost of training to railways. Thus thinking of technical resignation. But as per rules (not sure about this,just heard from friend), one needs to apply for pay protection with in one year of joining service. Now if I apply for technical resignation my current service 2 years will be counted.

In that case will I be eligible for pay protection or not. The department is ready to give technical resignation. And if I am not eligible for pay protection in technical resignation will i be eligible if i go for normal resignation. I have not applied for this in railway so far. Please guide me what to do.

Thankyou
Asked 10 months ago in Civil Law from Delhi, Delhi
Technical resignation means employee became unfit for the job and no need of rehabilitation. So collect some information from superior officer but also bear in mind that this unfit is not a bar in joining of subsequent service. 

Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2693 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Now I got selected in some other centre government department at lower grade pay. I have already put in 2 years of service in railways including 1 year training.
In this regard a settled law is reproduced for your information which is self explanatory and alos gives you the right answer as per provisions of law:

 Hon'ble Supreme Court:

COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA & ORS V. FARID SATTAR [2000] RD-SC 206 (7 April 2000) 
SUPREME COURT
V.N.Khare, Doraiswamy Raju 

V.N.KHAREJ.

Farid Sattar, respondent herein, joined as an Auditor in the Office of the Accountant General (A & E), West Bengal on 16.2.1982. Consequent on the bifurcation of Audit and Accounts, the respondent was transferred to the Office of the Accountant General (A & E), West Bengal on 1.11.1985.

The respondent opted for the accounts wing and as such he was retained there and subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Accountant on 4.12.1987. In December, 1990 the respondent while officiating on the post of Senior Accountant applied for mutual transfer with one Shri Paresh Ghosh, Senior Accountmit, working in the Office of the Senior Deputy Accountant General (A & E). Sikkim. As mutual transfer was not permissible in the cadre of Senior Accountant, the respondent was advised to apply for unilateral transfer after seeking reversion to the lower post of Accountant as a direct recruit. In pursuance of the advice tendered, the respondent applied for unilateral transfer in the cadre of Accountant foregoing the status of a Senior Accountant, in the Office of the Senior Deputy Accountant General (A & E), Sikkim in July, 1992 and he was permitted to take such transfer on certain terms and conditions. The pay scale of Senior Accountant at the relevant time was Rs. 1400-2600 whereas, the pay scale of Accountant was Rs. 1200-2040.

The respondent having accepted the terms and conditions of unilateral transfer was posted as an Accountant in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. However, his pay was erroneously fixed at Rs. 1560/-, which he was drawing in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 prior to his reversion to the lower post.

Subsequently, it was found that the fixation of pay of the respondent at the stage of Rs. 1560/- was due to some mistake and, therefore, by a Memorandum dated 8.11.1994 the pay of the respondent was directed to be re-fixed and a further direction for recovery' of excess payment made to the respondent was also issued. It is at this stage the respondent filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta, challenging the Memorandum dated 8.11.1994 contending that the pay which he was drawing as Senior Accountant viz.. Rs. 1560/- in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 has to be protected even if he was reverted to the lower post of Accountant on transfer and re-fixation of his pay at a lower stage, and recovery of the alleged excess payment of salary is unwarranted. The appellants herein disputed the contentions of the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent was bound by the terms and conditions of the unilateral transfer and as on acceptance of such terms and conditions, the respondent was required to tender technical resignation from the post of Senior Accountant and had to join as a direct recruit on the lower post of Accountant ranking junior most in the cadre of Accountant. It was also contended that on such a transfer the pay of the transferee is not required to be protected and his pay was to be fixed as a direct recruit on the lower post in which post he was reverted. The tribunal took the view that since unilateral transfer is not contemplated by Fundamental Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'F.R") and as such, in a case like the present one the respondent has to be treated as having gone on transfer on request and. therefore, his case was to be governed by F.R.22 (1) (a) (3). In view of the provisions of above Rules, the tribunal quashed the impugned order and allowed the application of the respondent. It is against the said judgment and order of the tribunal the appellants are in appeal before us.
Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the tribunal fell in error in applying F.R.22 (1) (a) (3) in the present case. The argument is that the pay of the respondent was required to be fixed in accordance with the terms and conditions which were accepted by the respondent. 
Learned counsel tlien referred to the terms and conditions of the unilateral transfer of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that unilateral transfer not being contemplated in F.R., the transfer of the respondent necessarily has to be governed by F.R. and in the present case it is F.R. 22 (l)(a) (3) which is applicable, and on an application of the said rule, the judgment and order of the tribunal has to be affirmed. 
In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to refer F.R. 22 (1) (a) (2) (3) and the relevant portions are extracted below: 
"FR 22 (1) (a) (2): When the appointment to the new post does not involve such assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance, he shall draw' as initial pay', tile stage of the time-scale which is equal to ins pay in response of the old post held by him on regular basis, or, if there is no such stage, the stage next above his pay in respect of the old post held by him on regular basis: 
FR 22 (1) (a) (3): When appointment to the new post is made on his own request under sub-rule (a) of Rule 15 of the said rules, and the maximum pay in the time-scale of that post is lower than his pay' in respect of the old post held regularly, he shall draw that maximum as his initial Pay'- " The relevant terms and conditions of unilateral transfer, as accepted by the respondent, are extracted below: 
"The transfer will be not in public interest and as such he will not be entitled to any joining time, joining time pay or T.A. 
He will be assigned junior to the junior most Accountant on the date he reports for duty in this office for all intents and purposes. 
He shall have to submit his technical resignation from the post of Senior Accountant in the Office of the A.G.(A & E), West Bengal, Calcutta, in order to join Accountant's post in the Office of the Senior Dy. Accountant General ( A & E), Sikkim, Gangtok. 
He shall have no right to seek re-transfer to his parent office or to any other office. 
On unilateral transfer he is required to pass whatever departmental examination as prescribed by the relevant recruitment rules. 
This pay shall be regulated in accordance with the relevant rules in force in his U.T. as Accountant" It is no doubt true that unilateral transfer which is said to be coined by the appellants is not contemplated under the Fundamental Rules What is contemplated is the transfer on written request under Fundamental Rule 15. But if such a transfer is not contemplated under the Fundamental Rule., it is not necessarily to be governed by the Fundamental Rule, but by the terms and conditions of such unilateral transfer. Fundamental Rule 22 (1) (a) (2) provides that, when an employee is transferred to a new post, which does not involve assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance, he shall draw as initial pay, the stage of the time-scale which is equal to his pay in respect of the old post held by him on regular basis. Thus F.R.22(I)(a)(2) would be applicable where there is an ordinary transfer which is not by way of reversion to the lower post and in such a case, the pay of an employee on transfer to a new post has to be protected. Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(3) is applicable where an employee is transferred to a new post on his own request under sub-rule (a) of Rule 15, and further in such a transfer no reversion is involved. In such a transfer to a new post if the maximum pay in the time-scale of the transferred post is lower than Ins pay in respect of the old post held regularly, he is required to draw that maximum as his initial pay. For illustration - an employee working in a pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 was drawing pay at the stage of Rs, 2040 and he is transferred on his own request not involving reversion to a post which carries pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. In such a case the maximum pay which lie was drawing viz.. Rs. 2040 has to be protected on the transferred post which carries a pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. It is not the case here. Here. what we find is that the respondent on his own volition sought transfer on certain terms and conditions accepted by him. The terms and conditions of unilateral transfer are very clear and there is no ambiguity in it. 
The terms and conditions provided that the respondent on transfer would be appointed to a post which is lower to the post which he was occupying prior to his transfer and he was also required to tender technical resignation from the post which he was holding with a view to join the lower post as a direct recruit and was to rank junior to junior most employee in the cadre of Accountant. He was further required to forego any benefit of passing any departmental examination while working in the higher post. In such a situation, the pay of the respondent had to be fixed with reference to the lower pay scale and not with reference to the pay drawn by him in the higher post since he was to be considered as a direct recruit in the lower post. 
Under the terms and conditions of the transfer, the pay which the respondent was drawing on higher post was not required to be protected when he joined the lower post of Accountant. 
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the pay of the respondent, as fixed earlier, was correctly re-fixed by Memorandum dated 8.11. 1994. We, therefore, find that the judgment and order of the tribunal is not sustainable in law and the same deserves to be set aside. 
We order accordingly. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 



Fixation of pay in case of employee seeking transfer to a lower post under FR 15(a) is regulated by rule FR22I(a)(3) in terms of DoPT Office Memorandum No. F. No. 13/9/2009-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 21.10.2009.

	Fundamental Rule 22 B as noted in aforementioned judgment of the Honble High Court provides that a Government servant who is appointed as a probationer in another service or cadre, and subsequently confirmed in that service or cadre, during the period of probation, shall draw pay at the minimum of the time scale or at the probationary stage of the time scale of the service or post, as the case may be. On confirmation in the service or post after the expiry of the period of probation, the pay of the Government servant needs to be fixed in the time scale of the service or post in accordance with the provisions of Rule 22 or Rule 22C, as the case may be. In terms of proviso to FR 22B (1)(b), the pay of Government servant was not to be fixed under Rule 22 or Rule 22C with reference to the pay he could have drawn in the previous post, which he was holding in temporary capacity. In such situation he shall continue to draw pay in the time scale of the service or post held by him. From the aforementioned it is clear that the pay of Government servant was not to be fixed under Rule 22 or Rule 22 C with reference to the pay that he would have drawn in the previous post which he was holding in temporary capacity.



There is another judgement in your favor in this regard which is also reproduced below:

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Prakash Keswani vs Delhi Development Authority on 19 January, 2012
      

  

  

 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH


OA No. 1732/2011


New Delhi this the 19th day of January, 2012

Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A)
Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J)

Shri Prakash Keswani,
S/o Shri B.D.Keshwani,
R/o B-1025, Palam Vihar
Gurgaon (Hayana)
Presently  posted as Assistant Engineer (Civil),
CGD No.5, DDA, Siri Fort Complex,
New Delhi.							                   Applicant

(By Advocate Shri R.A.Sharma )

VERSUS

1.   	Delhi Development Authority,
       	Through its Vice Chairman,
       	Vikas Sadan ( B-Block), Ist Floor,
	Near INA, New Delhi.


2.  	Superintending Engineer,
          Civil Circle M-22, Public Works Department,
          Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi.

3. 	Superintending Engineer (Coordination),
          Civil Circle  (Northern Region)
          CPWD, East Block-I, Level-6
          RK Puram, New Delhi-110066.			     Respondents

(By Advocate Shri KaruneshTandon and Shri B.N.P. Pathak))

O R D E R
Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J):

Applicant joined as Junior Engineer (Civil) in CPWD in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 w.e.f. 1.04.1977. Subsequently he applied for the post of JE (Civil) in DDA. On being selected he was appointed on said post of JE (Civil) in DDA in pay scale of Rs.425-700. He joined on the said post in the forenoon of 31.12.1979. He has filed present Original Application seeking issuance of direction to respondent No. 1, i.e. DDA to give him the benefit of past service rendered by him in CPWD from 01.04.1977 to 31.12.1979 by protecting his last pay drawn, i.e., Rs.455/-, taking into account the said service for the purpose of ACP benefits and time bound up-gradation.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for applicant contended that the aforementioned services rendered by the applicant in CPWD should also be taken into account while determining his pensionary benefit on retirement. In support of his claim for pay protection, learned counsel appearing for applicant has relied upon decision of Honble Delhi High Court in LPA no 690/2001 dated 3.03.2009 ( 158 (2009) DLT 39 (DB). In the said case appellants were earlier working as JE in CPWD and after some time, on selection, they were appointed as JE in DDA. They made representation for fixation of their pay under Fundament Rule 22 by giving them benefit of their past service. On rejection of said representation they filed WP (C) no. 1768/1988 before Honble Delhi High Court. Honble Single Judge of Honble Delhi High Court dismissed the Writ Petition (C) taking the view that appellants were initially appointed on probation and provisions of FR 22 were not applicable to them. Taking a view that appellants were entitled to benefit of FR 22 B, Honble Division Bench disposed of the LPA.

2.	Fundamental Rule 22 B as noted in aforementioned judgment of the Honble High Court provides that a Government servant who is appointed as a probationer in another service or cadre, and subsequently confirmed in that service or cadre, during the period of probation, shall draw pay at the minimum of the time scale or at the probationary stage of the time scale of the service or post, as the case may be. On confirmation in the service or post after the expiry of the period of probation, the pay of the Government servant needs to be fixed in the time scale of the service or post in accordance with the provisions of Rule 22 or Rule 22C, as the case may be. In terms of proviso to FR 22B (1)(b), the pay of Government servant was not to be fixed under Rule 22 or Rule 22C with reference to the pay he could have drawn in the previous post, which he was holding in temporary capacity. In such situation he shall continue to draw pay in the time scale of the service or post held by him. From the aforementioned it is clear that the pay of Government servant was not to be fixed under Rule 22 or Rule 22 C with reference to the pay that he would have drawn in the previous post which he was holding in temporary capacity.

In para 4.20 of the counter reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 3, it is specifically mentioned that the applicant was working in PWD from 1.4.1977 to 30.4.1979 as JE (C) on temporary basis. Relevant excerpts of said reply read as under:-

.It is further submitted that in reply SE PWD M-22( on behalf of respondent No.2) replied vide his letter no. 9(4)/PWD circle M-22/DA/866 19.6.2008 wherein he verified service rendered by applicant in PWD NCTD from 1.4.77 to 30.12.79 as JE (Civil) on temporary basis, sent photocopy of service record of applicant and informed that the leave encashment and GPF balance already been paid to the applicant and that nothing more is to be paid to the employee as per rules. SE M-22 PWD informed DDA that LS/PC (with interest) cannot be paid to employee as per rules of Govt. of India. He also asked DDA to quote the rules under which PWD (DA) should pay LS/PC (with interest) to DDA.

Thus in terms of proviso to FR 22B (1)(b) the pay of the applicant was not to be fixed with reference to the pay that he would have drawn in the previous post which he was holding in a temporary capacity, but he was to be continued to draw the pay in the time scale of the service or post. For easy reference FR 22 B (1) is extracted below:-

F.R.22-B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the following provisions shall govern the pay of a Government servant who is appointed as a probationer in another service or cadre, and subsequent confirmed in that service or cadre-

during the period of probation, he shall draw pay at the minimum of the time-scale or at the probationary stage of the time-scale of the service or post, as the case may be:

Provided that if the presumptive pay of the permanent post on which he holds a lien or would hold a lien had his lien not been suspended, should at any time be greater than the pay fixed under this clause, he shall draws the presumptive pay of the permanent post;

On confirmation in the service or post after the expiry of the period of probation, the pay of the Government servant shall be fixed in the time scale of the service or post in accordance with the provisions of Rule 22 or Rule 22-C, as the case may be:

Provided that the pay of Government servant shall not be so fixed under Rule 22 or Rule 22-C with reference to the pay that he would have drawn in the previous post which he was holding in a temporary capacity, but he shall continue to draw the pay in the time scale of the service or post.

(2) The provisions contained in sub-rule (1) shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases of Government servants appointed on probation with definite conditions against temporary posts in another service or cadre where recruitment to permanent posts of such service or cadre is made as probationers, except that in such cases the fixation of pay in the manner indicated in Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) shall be done under Rule 31 of these Rules immediately on the expiry of the period of probation and on regular officiating appointment to a post, either permanent or temporary, in the service or cadre.

(3).Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, a Government servant appointed as an apprentice in another service or cadre shall draw-

during the period of apprenticeship, the stipend or pay prescribed for such period, provided that if the presumptive pay of the permanent post, other than a tenure post, on which he holds a lien or would hold a lien had his lien had not been suspended, should at any time be greater than the stipend or pay fixed under this clause, he shall draws the presumptive pay of the permanent post.

on satisfactory completion of the apprenticeship and regular appointment to a post in the service or cadre, the pay as fixed in the time scale of the service or post under Rule 22 or 22-C or 31, as the case may be, of these Rules:

Provided that the pay of the Government servant shall not be so fixed under Rule 22 or Rule 22-C with reference to the pay that he would have drawn in the previous post which he was holding in a temporary capacity, but he shall continue to draw the pay in the time-scale of the service or post. In the case of G.R.Chawla & Ors Vs. DDA, Honble Delhi High Court had directed that during the probation period, the pay of the appellants was to be fixed under FR 22B and thereafter under the normal rules. The normal rule refers to rule 22. In Circular dated 28.01.2008, in terms of which representations were called from JEs to consider their cases for giving them benefit of past service rendered by them in other pensionable establishment under the Central Government/State Government/Autonomous bodies before joining DDA for pensionary benefits as well as for upgradation under the ACP, it was clearly provided that the past service rendered by JEs in other pensionable establishments could be taken into account, subject to the following conditions:

1.That they have applied through proper channel.

2. That Technical Resignation is submitted by the officers in their parent departments and joined the DDA in continuity of the Technical resignation &

3. That their parent departments pay the LS & PC to the DDA. Applicant has assailed order dated 9.03.2011 in terms of which his claim for grant of benefit of past service was rejected on the ground that he did not fulfill conditions No.2 & 3 i.e. his resignation was not technical resignation and his parent department did not pay LS & PC to DDA. The term technical resignation is defined in general instructions issued by Department of Personnel and Training vide OM no. 11.02.1988. In term of said definition in cases where Government servants apply for posts in the same or other departments through proper channel and on selection, they are asked to resign the previous posts for administrative reasons, the benefit of past service may, if otherwise admissible under rules, be given for purposes of fixation of pay in the new post treating the resignation as a technical formality. The said definition reads as under:-

When resignation is a technical formality - In cases where Government servants apply for posts in the same or other departments through proper channel and on selection, they are asked to resign the previous posts for administrative reasons, the benefit of past service may, if otherwise admissible under rules, be given for purposes of fixation of pay in the new post treating the resignation as a technical formality.

3.	In the counter reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 it is admitted that the applicant submitted his application through proper channel and respondents no. 2 and 3 were aware of the fact at the time of resignation that the applicant had resigned due to selection in DDA. Para 4.24 of the said reply reads as under:

That in reply to the contents of the corresponding para it is submitted that the applicant submitted his resignation from CPWD/PWD on his selection in DDA as JE (Civil) and nowhere in the record the resignation was recognized by competent authority as Technical Resignation. At the same time, it is also true that the applicant submitted his application to DDA through proper channel and respondent no. 2 and 3 were aware of the fact at the time of resignation, that the applicant had resigned due to his selection in DDA, the resignation may be considered as Technical formality.

As per the Govt. of India decision No. 4,5, 6 below Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 the practice of realization of LS & PC has been dispensed with. Therefore payment of LS & PC by the respondent no. 2 and 3 to respondent no. 1 is not required. However, in paras 4.20, 4.22 and 4.23 of the reply of respondents no. 2 and 3, it has categorically been stated that LS/PC (with interest) would not be paid to DDA and it was for the DDA to quote the rules under which PWD (DA) was required to pay the LS/PC to DDA. In para 4.24 of reply filed by CPWD/PWD it is stated that, as per Govt. of India decision 4,5 & 6 below rule 14 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the practice of realization of LS/PC has been dispensed with and, therefore, PWD was not required to pay the said amount to DDA. In para 4.23 of the reply filed by PWD it was categorically stated that the applicant had not even completed the period of probation in CPWD before joining DDA.

4.	In view of aforementioned, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present Original Application with a direction to respondents to examine and decide the claim of applicant for giving him the benefit of past service rendered by him in PWD keeping in view the aforementioned averments made by respondents No. 2 and 3 in their counter reply, particularly the fact that the applicant was only a probationer in CPWD, he had applied for post of JE (Civil) in DDA through proper channel and also the fact that as per decision no, 4,5 and 6 below Rule 14 of CCS (Pension ) Rules, 1972, the practice of realisation of LS/PC had been dispensed with. While doing so, respondents shall also keep in view the proviso to Rule 22 B (1)(b) of fundamental Rules. Decision so taken shall be communicated to applicant. OA stands disposed of. No costs.

( A.K.Bhardwaj)					         ( Dr. Veena Chhotray )
    Member (J)                                                       Member (A)

Hope the above information was useful.
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
13883 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
You must understand one thing that the privilege can be availed only once.  If you have joined under ex servicemen quota, this reservation cannot be utilised once again for some other job after having availed it earlier.   Similarly the pay protection that you were eligible has already been availed with the Railways and accordingly your pay has been re-fixed.  If this was not availed then you may avail this privilege after obtaining normal resignation from railways. 
You must understand the concept before taking any decision in this regard.
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
13883 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
No. 3/19/2009-Estt. (Pay II)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension
Department of Personnel & Training
****a*****
New Delhi, Dated: 5ft,~~ri1 ,2010.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Applicability of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 to persons re-employed in
Government Service after retirement and whose pay is debitable to Civil
Estimates.
- - -- --- - -- -
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M. No.
3/13/2008-Estt. (Pay II) dated llth November, 2008 on the above-mentioned subject.
Certain references have been received seeking clarification regarding the manner of
fixation of pay of retired Defence Forces personnel/officers re-employed in Central
Government Civilian posts, after the implementation of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. This has
been considered in consultation with Department of Expenditure. The pay fixation of reemployed
pensioners on re-employment in Central Government, including that of
Defence Forces personnel/officers, is being done in accordance with CCS (fixation of pay
of re-employed pensioners) Orders, 1986, issued vide this Department's O.M. No.
3/1/85-Estt. (Pay II) dated 3lStJuly, 1986 (as revised from time to time).
2. After the introduction of the system of running pay bands and grade pays, it has
been decided to amend the relevant provisions of CCS (fixation of pay of re-employed
pensioners) Orders, 1986 in the manner indicated below: -
Para 4(a): Re-employed pensioners shall
be allowed to draw pay only in the
prescribed scales of pay of the posts in
which they are re-employed. No
protection of the scales of pay of the posts
held by them prior to retirement shall be
given.
Para 4(a): Re-employed pensioners shall
be allowed to draw pay only in the
prescribed pay scale/pay structure of the
post in which they are re-employed. No
protection of the scales of pay/pay
structure of the post held by them prior to
retirement shall be given.
, Note: Under the provisions of CCS (RP)
Rules, 2008, revised pay structure
comprises the grade pay attached to the
post and the applicable pay band.
Para 4(b)(i): In all cases where the
pension is fully ignored, the initial pay on
re-employment shall be fixed at the
minimum of the scale of pay of the reemployed
post.
Para 4(b)(i): In all cases where the
pension is fully ignored, the initial pay on
re-employment shall be fixed as per entry
pay in the revised pay structure of the reemployed
post applicable in the case of
direct recruits appointed on or after
1.1.2006 as notified vide Section II, Part A
of First Schedule to CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. 
I Para 4(b)(ii): In cases where the entire I Para 4(b)(ii): In cases where the entire I
lension and pensionary benefits are not
gnored for pay fixation, the initial pay on
e-employment shall be fixed at the same
tage as the last pay drawn before
etirement. If there is no such stage in the
e-employed post, the pay shall be fixed at
he stage next above that pay. If the
naximum of the pay scale in which a
~ensioner is re-employed is less than the
ast pay drawn by him before retirement,
iis initial pay shall be fixed at the
naximum of the scale of pay of the remployed
post. Similarly, if the minimum
)f the scale of pay in which a pensioner is
e-employed Is more than the last pay
Irawn by hlm before retirement, his initial
lay shall be fixed at the minimum of the
icale of pay of the re-employed post.
iowever, in all these cases, the nongnorable
part of the pension shall be
.educed from the pay so fixed.
Para 4(c): The re-employed pensioner will,
in addition to pay as fixed under Para (b)
above shall be permitted to draw
separately any pension sanctioned to him
and to retain any other form of retirement
benefits.
Para 4(d): In the case of persons retiring
before attaining the age of 55 years and
who are re-employed, pension (including
PEG and other forms of retirement
benefits) shall be ignored for initial pay
fixation in the following extent:-
(i) In the case of ex-servicemen who held
posts below Commissioned Officer rank in
the Defence Forces and in the case ol
civilians who held posts below Group 'A'
posts at the time of their retirement, the
entire pension and pension equivalent oi
retirement benefits shall be ignored.
(ii) In the case of service officers belonging
to the Defence Forces and Civiliar
pensioners who held Group 'A' posts a1
. . I pension and pensionary benefits are not
gnored for pay fixation, the initial basic
lay on re-employment shall be fixed at the
iame stage as the last basic pay drawn
)efore retirement. However, he shall be
:ranted the grade pay of the re-employed
lost. The maximum basic pay cannot
zxceed the grade pay of the re-employed
lost plus pay in the pay band of Rs.67000
.e. the maximum of the pay band PB-4. In
111 these cases, the non-ignorable part of
:he penslon shall be reduced from the pay
;o fixed.
llustration
4 Colonel who retired with basic pay of
is.61700 (grade pay Rs.8700; pay in the
3ay band Rs.53000) is re-employed as a
Deputy Secretary in an organization with
:rade pay of Rs.7600. In this case, on remployment,
his basic pay will continue to
be Rs.61700. However, his grade pay on
re-employment will be Rs.7600 and the
pay in the pay band Rs.54100. Thereafter,
the non-ignorable part of the pension will
be reduced from the pay so fixed.
Note: In the revised pay structure, basic
oay is pay in the pay band plus the grade
uoy attached to the post.
Para 4(c): No change.
Para 4(d): In the case of persons retiring
before attaining the age of 55 years and
who are re-employed, pension (including
PEG and other forms of retirement
benefits) shall be ignored for initial pay
fixation in the following extent:-
(i) No change.
(ii) In the case of Commissioned Se~icc
officers belonging to the Defence Force!
and Civilian pensioners who held Group 'A 
the time of their retirement, the first Rs.
5001-* of the pension and pension
equivalent retirement benefits shall be
ignored. (*Already revised to Rs. 40001-
vide O.M. No. 311312008-Estt. (Pay II)
dated llth ~ovember, 2008)
posts at the time of their retirement, the
first Rs.40001- of the pension and pension
equivalent retirement benefits shall be
ignored.
3. Apart from the above, it is also clarified as under: -
(i) Drawal of increments: Once the initial pay of the re-employed pensioner has
been fixed in the manner indicated above, he will be allowed to draw normal
increments as per the provisions of Rule 9 and 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008.
(ii) Allowances: The drawal of various allowances and other benefits in the
revised pay structure shall be regulated with reference to the grade pay of the
re-employed post or the basic pay, as the case may be.
(iii) Treatment of Military Service Pay (MSP): MSP is granted to Defence Forces
officerslpersonnel while they are serving in the Defence Forces. Accordingly,
on their re-employment in civilian organizations, including secret
organizations under the Cabinet Secretariat umbrella, the question of grant of
MSP to such officers/personnel does not arise. However, the benefit of MSP
given to all retired Defence Forces officers/personnel by reckoning it at the
time of calculation of their wension (notionallv in the case of pre-1.1.2006
pensioners) should not be withdrawn. '~ccordinilv. while the pension of such
re-em~loved pensioners will include the element of MSP. thev will not be
granted MSP while working in civilian organizations.
(iv) Fixation of pay of personnelfofficers re-employed prior to 1.1.2006 and who
were in employment as on 1.1.2006: In the case of personnel/officers who
were re-employed before 1.1.2006 and who were working in the Central
Government organizations on re-employment basis as on 1.1.2006, their pay
will be fixed in accordance with the provisions of DOPT O.M. No.3/13/2008-
Estt.(Pay II) dated 11.11.2008. This O.M. stipulates that re-employed persons
who become eligible to elect revised pay structure shall exercise option in the
manner laid down in Rule 6 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 and their pay shall be fixed
in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. In this
context, it is clarified that in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of CCS
(RP) Rules, 2008, Department of Expenditure issued fitment tables
corresponding to each pre-revised pay scale vide O.M. No.1/1/2008-IC dated
30.8.2008. In the case of those personnellofficers as well, who were reemployed
before 1.1.2006 and who were working in the civilian organizations
on re-employment basis as on 1.1.2006, their pay will be fixed with refeience
to the fitment table of the pre-revised civilian pay scale in which they were
re-employed and corresponding to the stage in the pre-revised pay scale as on
1.1.2006.
(v) Fixation of pay of personnelfofficers who retired prior to 1.1.2006 and who
have been re-employed after 1.1.2006: In the case of personnel/officers who
had retired prior to 1.1.2006 and who have been re-employed after 1.1.2006,
their pay on re-employment will be fixed by notionally arriving at their revised
basic pay at the time of retirement as if they had retired under the revised pay
structure. This will be done with reference to the fitment table of the Defence
Service RankICivilian service post (as the case may be) from which they had
retired and the stage of basic pay at the time of their retirement. Their basic 
pay on re-employment will be fixed at the same stage as the notional last
basic pay before retirement so arrived at. However, they shall be granted the
grade pay of the re-employed post. The maximum basic pay cannot exceed
the grade pay of the re-employed post plus pay in the pay band of Rs.67000
i.e. the maximum of the pay band PB-4. In all these cases, the non-ignorable
part of the pension shall be reduced from the pay so fixed.
4. The existing instructions on the subject shall be treated as amended to
this extent.
5. In so far as the persons sewing in the Indian Audit & Accounts
Department are concerned, these orders are being issued after consultation with the
Comptroller &Auditor General of lndia.
L
(Rita Mathur)
Director
To
All MiniStrieS/De~artment [As Der standard list attachedl
,,,~Dv to : Director (NIC), Department of Personnel &Training, to upload the O.M. on this
Department's website under the Head "Establishment (Pay)", Sub-Head "Pay Rules" &
under the caption "What's New".
Copies also forwarded to:
1. The Comptroller & Auditor General of lndia and all States under his control. (With 400
spare copies)
2. Controller General of Accounts/Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Finance.
3. Secretaries to UPSC/Supreme Court of lndia/Election Commission/Lok Sabha
Secretariaticabinet Secretariatfcentral Vigilance Commission/President's
SecretariatNice President's SecretariatlPrime Minister's OfficefPlanning Commission.
4. Department of Personnel &Training (AIS Division)/JCA/Admn. Section.
5. Additional Secretary (Union Territories), Ministry of Home Affairs.
6. All State Governments and Union Territories.
7. Secretary, National Council (Staff Side), 13-C, Feroz Shah Road, New Delhi
8. All Members of the Staff Side of the National Council of JCMIDepartmental Council.
9. All Officers/Sections of the Department of Personnel & TrainingjDepartment of
Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances/Department of Pension & Pensioners'
Welfare.
10. Ministty of Finance, Department of Expenditure
11.25 spare copies.
( Rita Mathur )
Director 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23079 Answers
1212 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Civil Lawyers

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
13883 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23079 Answers
1212 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18049 Answers
444 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12027 Answers
226 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3513 Answers
129 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
868 Answers
43 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Atulay Nehra
Advocate, Noida
423 Answers
15 Consultations
4.7 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1905 Answers
19 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2693 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
S J Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1949 Answers
65 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0