• Pay protection

Sir
I am an ex-serviceman discharged from Indian Navy on 31 jul 2011 an re-employed as a fireman in Indian Ordnance factory on 16 jul 2012. I was a Personnel Below Officer Rank(PBOR) in Indian Navy and drawn last pay of 10200(Bsic Pay)+2800(Grade Pay)+2000(Military Service Pay). And my present pay is 6560(Basic Pay)+1900(Grade Pay). I want to know the following things
1. Am i eligible for pay protection as per my last pay drawn in Indian Navy?
2. If yes, which are the elements of my last pay in Navy will be considered for pay fixation in the present post?
3. What will my new pay after re-fixation?
4. Please forward a judjement copy(by CAT or any other court) in favour of pay protection re-fixation(for PBOR) if any in to my e-mail ID.

Yours faithfully

C Shalivahan
Asked 1 year ago in Civil Law from Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu
Delhi High Court
Captain S.S. Bisht vs Indira Gandhi National Open ... on 19 March, 2010
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            WP(C) No.6473 /1999

%                                          Date of decision: 19th March, 2010

CAPTAIN S.S. BISHT                                           ..... Petitioner
                             Through: Mr. S.S. Bisht, petitioner in person.

                                     Versus

INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL
OPEN UNIVERSITY & ANR.                                        ..... Respondents
                 Through: None.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.        Whether reporters of Local papers may
          be allowed to see the judgment?               Yes

2.        To be referred to the reporter or not?               Yes

3.        Whether the judgment should be reported              Yes
          in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the office orders of the respondent No.1 University (IGNOU) rejecting the representation of the petitioner for grant of basic pay protection and seeks a writ of mandamus for protection of his basic pay and a direction for payment of the differential amounts.

2. The facts, as emerge from the undisputed documents are not in dispute. The respondent No.1 IGNOU constituted a Selection Committee for selection of a candidate for the post of Security Officer in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. The said Selection Committee held a meeting on 26th April, 1990. As per the minutes of the said meeting, out of the panel of seven officers received for the post of Security Officer from the Directorate General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, four officers who had retired from service and whose bio-data was available were called for interview and out of which only two attended. The Committee interviewed the candidates and recommended the petitioner for appointment to the post of Security Officer. In the said Minutes of the Meeting, under the column "Basic Pay Recommended" it is mentioned "Pay protection as per rules." The said minutes were approved on 30th April, 1990 by the Vice Chancellor of the respondent IGNOU.

3. The file noting dated 22nd May, 1990 of the Administrative Section of the respondent No.1 IGNOU shows that at that time there was no post of Security Officer in the respondent IGNOU but feeling the need for providing effective security at the campus of the respondent University, it was agreed that the pay of the said Security Officer would be met against one of the vacant posts of Assistant Registrars till the post of Security Officer was created on a regular basis by the Finance Committee and a proposal wherefor was pending. The office noting of 1st June, 1990 is as under:-

"The Selection Committee recommendations are "Pay protection as per rules." On production of the last pay drawn by Captain Bisht in the Defence Services, the pay will be protected please".
There is nothing to indicate that the aforesaid did not have the sanction of the decision makers in the respondent No.1 IGNOU.

4. Pursuant to the above, a letter dated 6-7th June, 1990 offering the post of Security Officer "in the revised pay scale of Rs.2200-75-2800-100- 4000 with basic pay at Rs., pay protection as per rules plus allowances as admissible under the University Rules from time to time" and subject to the other terms and conditions contained therein was issued to the petitioner. Upon acceptance of the offer aforesaid by the petitioner, office order dated 22-26th June, 1990 was issued of appointment of the petitioner as Security Officer "in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 with basic pay (Pay protection as per rules) plus allowances as admissible under the University Rules from time to time w.e.f. 20th June, 1990." The petitioner was issued a last pay certificate dated 5th June, 1990 by the Army Authorities showing his basic pay as Rs.2800/- and Rank Pay as Rs.200/-. The said last pay certificate was submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 IGNOU which vide its office order dated 23rd August, 1990 fixed the pay of the petitioner at Rs.2575/- per month in the aforesaid scale of pay and w.e.f. 20th June, 1990.

5. According to the petitioner the fixation of his pay at Rs.2575/- per month was contrary to the minutes preceding his appointment, the offer of appointment and the order of appointment. The petitioner thus immediately in August, 1990 itself protested against the same. It was the case of the petitioner that the basic pay of the petitioner having been protected his pay should have been fixed at Rs.3000/-, being his basic pay (inclusive of rank pay) as per the last pay certificate issued by the Army Authorities.

6. The respondent No.1 IGNOU however vide its letter dated 25th October, 1990 informed the petitioner that his representation could not be acceded to in view of Clause 8 of the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Reemployed Pensioners) Orders 1986. It was further stated that the said order did not contemplate protection of last pay drawn by the petitioner.

7. The petitioner however continued to represent. He was vide letter dated 10-17th June, 1992 confirmed as Security Officer w.e.f. 20th June, 1991. On repeated representations of the petitioner, he was on 7 th November, 1996 again informed that his request could not be acceded to.

However, office noting of the year 1997 show that the Finance and Administrative Department of the respondent No.1 IGNOU, on the basis of the report of the reconstituted Increment Committee to the effect that when a person is already employed and is drawing a pay higher than the minimum of the scale, and when the Selection Committee has not recommended a higher initial pay, the letter of appointment should indicate that the University will protect his pay, had found the petitioner entitled to protection of his basic pay of Rs.3000/- at the point of joining on 20th June, 1990. However, inspite of the same, the respondent No.1 IGNOU decided to seek clarification from the Department of Personnel. Some correspondence was exchanged with the Department of Personnel but it appears that no response was received and accordingly the representations of the petitioner remained unanswered. Ultimately, petitioner filed the present petition and in which Rule was issued on 2nd August, 2000.

8. The respondent No.1 IGNOU has filed a counter affidavit in which it rests its case on Clause 8 of the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Reemployed Pensioners) Orders 1986 and which Clause 8 is as under:-

"8. Emergency Commissioned Officer and Short Service Commissioned Officers:
Emergency Commissioned Officers and short Service Commissioned officers who joined pre-commissioned training or were commissioned after 10.1.1968 may, on their appointment in Government service to unreserved vacancies, may be granted advance increments equal to the completed years of service rendered by them in Armed Forces on basic pay (inclusive of deferred pay but excluding other emoluments) equal to or higher than the minimum of the scale attached to the civil post in which they are employed. The pay so arrived at should not, however, exceed the basic pay (including the deferred pay but excluding other emoluments) last drawn by them in the Armed Forces."
However, the counsel for the respondent No.1 IGNOU failed to appear on 24th February, 2010 and today inspite of passover and the respondent No.1 IGNOU is thus proceeded against ex parte. The petitioner has appeared in person and reiterated his case as set out in the petition. On enquiry, he informed that he continues to be in the employment of the respondent No.1 IGNOU.

9. What is evident from the Minutes of the Meeting of the Selection Committee which selected the petitioner and is also clear from the letter offering appointment and the order of appointment is that the basic pay of the petitioner was to be protected. Considering that the selection was pursuant to the panel of names received from the Directorate General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence and the selection was to be of retired defence officers, the same could be nothing but protection of last basic pay drawn in the Defence Forces. It has been so understood by the respondent No.1 IGNOU also as apparent from the office noting of 1st June, 1990 (supra). However, the protection of basic pay was to be as per rules. The only rule relied upon by the respondent No.1 IGNOU is Clause 8 aforesaid of the 1986 Rules. However, the 1986 Rules are not of "protection of basic pay" but are of "fixation of pay". "Pay fixation" is different from "pay protection". The ā€˛Shorter Oxford Dictionary?, 6th Edition, defines fixation inter alia as "an action or process of fixing" and protection inter alia as "the action of protecting something." The courts also have distinguished between pay fixation and pay protection. The Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. K.P. Subbaiah AIR 2003 SC 3016 opined that pay protection does not include within its ambit protection of a scale of pay and the only intention of pay protection is to ensure that the ex-serviceman at the time of employment does not get an amount as pay, lesser than he was drawing while in the defence forces and while fixing the pay the employer has to ensure compliance with the requirement that it is not less than the last pay drawn. Similarly in M. Raja Vs. CEERI Educational Society, Pilani MANU/SC/8582/2006 it was held that pay protection did not include in its ambit the applicability of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission which would come in force in the future.

10. Thus the rules of 1986 aforesaid relating to "fixation of pay" cannot be pressed to scuttle the contract at the time of appointment of "pay protection". Clause 8 of the aforesaid rules relied upon is also regarding fixation of pay of Short Service Commissioned Officers and is not a rule qua protection of their pay.

11. The respondent IGNOU has not cited any rule as per which inspite of the contract of "pay protection", the protection could be limited to grant of advance increments equal to completed years of service rendered in the Armed Forces and not to the basic pay as per the last pay certificate issued by the Army Authorities.

12. Be that as it may, Rule 8 aforesaid being the only rule cited, even if to be seen, in my view does not stand in the way of pay protection. As per the said rule, the Short Service Commissioned Officer on appointment became entitled to advance increments equal to completed years of service rendered in the armed forces. Though there are no pleadings of the years spent by the petitioner in the armed forces but from the action of the respondent No.1 IGNOU of fixing the initial pay of the petitioner at Rs.2575/- per month in the pay scale of Rs.2200-75-2800, it appears that five advance increments of Rs.75/- were given to the petitioner indicating that the petitioner had spent five years in the armed forces. However, Rule 8 does not prohibit the respondent No.1 IGNOU from, in pursuance to the contract of pay protection, fixing the pay of the petitioner at Rs.3000/-

instead of Rs.2575/-. The only prohibition in the said Rule is that the pay to be fixed by giving such advance increments should not exceed the basic pay last drawn in the armed forces.

13. Thus looked at from any view, the defence of the respondent No.1 IGNOU to the claim of the petitioner is not justified. The petition is thus entitled to succeed and the orders of the respondent University rejecting the representations of the petitioner are liable to be quashed. The petitioner is also found entitled to a direction against the respondent IGNOU of payment of differential amounts.

14. At this stage, another plea of the respondent No.1 IGNOU may be noticed. It is inter alia the plea in the counter affidavit that the petitioner having worked for more than nine years had accepted the pay scale and acquiesced in the same and is estopped from pressing this petition. However, as noticed above, the petitioner since immediately after the fixation of his basic pay as Rs.2575/- has been representing and his case was favourably recommended by the Finance and Administrative Department of the Respondent No.1 IGNOU but for some inexplicable reason the opinion of the Department of Personnel, Government of India was decided to be sought. An employee is not expected to immediately approach the Court against his employers. The petitioner has been working on the sensitive post of a Security Officer and could not afford to be seen as an acrimonious and litigious individual. Nothing wrong can be found in the petitioner exhausting the departmental channel before approaching this Court. Moreover, the respondent IGNOU having been found to have deprived the petitioner of the contracted amount is not entitled to set up the plea of estoppel against the petitioner. A Single Judge of this Court has rather gone to the extent of holding that the claim to protection of pay is a fundamental right coming within the ambit of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore there is no question of any waiver of any fundamental right (see: Dr. M.C. Gupta Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/0352/1999). The petitioner cannot be deprived of the relief to which he has been found entitled on the said plea of the respondent No.1 IGNOU.

15. However, it is found that a direction to the respondent No.1 IGNOU to pay differential emoluments to the petitioner and of which the petitioner has been deprived for the last over ten years would still not mete out justice to the petitioner. The above facts also show a complete dereliction of responsibility at the hands of the decision makers of the respondent No.1 IGNOU. Inspite of favourable recommendations / decision within the department, the buck was sought to be passed to the Department of Personnel and where also the matter does not appear to have been pursued. In the circumstances, to prevent such delays and laxities in future, it is deemed expedient to burden the respondent No.1 IGNOU with interest on the arrears due. Considering the change in rates of interest in the last decade, a flat simple rate of interest of 7% is found appropriate. The same would be payable from the date when the differential amount for each month of employment was due and payable to the petitioner and till the date of payment.

16. The petition is therefore allowed. Office orders of the respondent No.1 IGNOU rejecting the representations of the petitioner for fixation of basic pay at Rs.3000/- w.e.f. 20th June, 1990 are quashed. The respondent No.1 IGNOU is directed to pay the arrears of differential amount with interest as aforesaid to the petitioner within six weeks hereof and further directed to pay the emoluments for the month of April, 2010 onwards to the petitioner in terms of the orders aforesaid. The petitioner is also awarded costs of Rs.10,000/- of this proceeding against the respondent No.1 IGNOU.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 19th March, 2010 gsr
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23240 Answers
1219 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1) you are entitled to pay protection 

2) as to exact amount of new pay payable to you it is better you contact your ex service men association in this regard 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23240 Answers
1219 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
In my opinion the Indian Ordnance Factory is coming under Central government, right? if so the Central rules and regulations will apply for your pay re-fixation. 
Different PSUs. like Bank, LIC or ONGC etc have different rules regarding pay fixation for ex servicemen and for those technical resignations.  Also the State and Central government and the organisations directly under the respective governments have their own set of rules for re-fixation of pay to the ex serviceman.
You may go through the rules being followed by the factory in which you are employed and verify and confirm if your refixation of salary is in accordance with the rules being followed by the organisation. 
The judgment of CAT or even supreme court is not necessary for fixing your pay, it will be helpful only when there is a dispute. 
You may even contact your union who will be able to guide you properly to the doubts you have in your mind. 
Did you enquire about it from the establishment section of the factory and what was their reply?
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14010 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
23240 Answers
1219 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1) for initial pay fixation of exserviceman who held posts below commissioned officer as per para 4(d) of circular your pension / retirement benefits would be ignored 

2) i presume you retired before age of 55 and was reemployed 

3) you would be entitled to pay only in the
prescribed pay scale/pay structure of the
post in which you  are re-employed. No
protection of the scales of pay/pay
structure of the post held by them prior to
retirement shall be given

4) No
protection of the scales of pay/pay
structure of the post held by you  prior to
retirement shall be given.
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23240 Answers
1219 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Mr. Shalivahan, I dont know who gave you the  judgement mentioned in your subsequent post. ut remember you cannot do anything keeping a judgement on this or any other subject, the office is not a court that they will listen to you if you show the judgement.  The court only can decide after hearing the arguments and  govethroughthesaid citation and not your office or any other office, so it is a waste exercise to produce a judgement before the head of your office. 
First of all you should be sure about your entitlement and the rules that govern your entitlement and if you find that you have not been given your due entitlement then you should exhaust the remedy available within the organisation by making a representation in writing to the competent authority of your office through proper channel.
After receiving a reply which if not favorable to you or does not commensurate with the existing  law or rule you may think of exploring further options either legal or departmental or through tribunal.
You should go through the service regulations  and pay rules f he central government and quote the relevant rules in your application/representation while seeking the relief of your entitled salary fixation.
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14010 Answers
127 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
14010 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23240 Answers
1219 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18102 Answers
448 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12112 Answers
231 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3534 Answers
130 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
868 Answers
43 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Atulay Nehra
Advocate, Noida
435 Answers
15 Consultations
4.7 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2752 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1915 Answers
19 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
S J Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1950 Answers
65 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0