CTC is used only for evaluation—not for rejection—while the protectable portion remains strictly Basic + DA

2)

As per rule, Protection of (Basic + DA) can be allowed subject to taking into consideration the overall CTC (including PRP) received by the candidate in his previous employment and that offered by Present Employment.

- Further, CTC by definition includes all costs incurred by the employer for employing the individual.

3) if your current employee has given pay protection to other employees at same  grade you cannot be discriminated against 

Your application for pay protection was submitted in 2013, at a time when no rule required comparison of CTC or any distinction between State PSUs and Central PSUs. The rule that the employer relied upon in 2016 was adopted later and cannot lawfully be applied retrospectively to reject your earlier request. In law, once an employee acts on an existing policy, their rights cannot be taken away by applying a later rule—this principle has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court under the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Your claim therefore deserves to be considered under the 2013 policy alone.

You have also stated that employees from other CPSEs, including some with lower CTC than yours, were granted pay protection. This selective and inconsistent treatment amounts to clear arbitrariness and discrimination. Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits such unequal treatment among similarly situated employees. If others with lower CTC were given the benefit while you were denied, the action becomes legally indefensible.

Further, the CTC calculation used by your employer appears ambiguous and incomplete. Employer PF contributions were not included, which artificially lowered your CTC. When a formula is unclear or inconsistently applied, the courts typically interpret the rule in favour of the employee. Since no CTC formula was ever communicated to you at the time of application, it cannot now be used as a ground for rejection.

Another important point in your favour is that pay protection relates to protection of basic pay plus DA—not full CTC. The reference to CTC in the rule is only a guiding factor, not the sole basis for rejecting a claim. Your employer’s interpretation is therefore legally flawed.

Your case before the High Court should be strengthened through the following strategies:

1. Request the Court to direct the employer to reconsider your 2013 application strictly under the rules existing in 2013, without applying any later amendments.

2. Seek a direction to the employer to disclose the complete CTC formula used in your case and the pay protection files of other employees who were granted the benefit.

3. Challenge the 2016 rejection order on grounds of arbitrariness, retrospective application of rules, discrimination, and violation of legitimate expectation.

4. Highlight documentary evidence showing that other employees from CPSEs—with equal or lower CTC—received pay protection, while you were denied.If you wish to contact us, you may do so on https://qrco.de/syslaw

Since this is a service-matter writ under Article 226, the High Court will primarily examine arbitrariness, discrimination, violation of legitimate expectation, and non-consideration of material facts.

You can plead and argue that “When similarly situated employees have been granted pay protection, denial to the petitioner alone is arbitrary, discriminatory and violates Article 14.”

“Applying a rule retrospectively which did not exist at the time of joining/application and without disclosure is illegal. Administrative rules cannot operate retrospectively unless specifically stated.”

You can argue that “CTC was calculated incorrectly, without defining the CTC formula, without giving the petitioner a hearing, and ignoring statutory employer contributions—thus the decision is vitiated by non-application of mind.”

You can also state that “Denial without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present relevant CTC details violates principles of natural justice.”

You can even state that “Rules framed in 2019 cannot govern the petitioner’s case retrospectively; service conditions and entitlements crystallize on the date of appointment and application.”

You may apprise your advocate with full details and fight for justice.

Need to inspect the draft before suggestion. You can seek telephonic consultation from kaanoon and talk

Your position is strong given the documented inconsistencies. Your legal strategy should focus on establishing that the rejection was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated the principles of natural justice. Some arguments to emphasize in your rebuttal to the respondent's reply:

1. Arbitrary Application of Rules (The Core of Your Case):
You must aggressively challenge the retrospective application of the 2016 rule to your 2013 application. Argue that applying a rule formulated in 2016 to a claim made in 2013 is manifestly arbitrary and violates your accrued rights. The authorities are bound by the policy prevailing at the time of your appointment.

2. Discrimination and Violation of Article 14:
This is your most potent argument. You have concrete evidence that pay protection was granted to other employees from CPSEs even with a lower CTC. The state PSU vs. central PSU differentiation introduced in 2019 is a classic case of "class legislation" without a reasonable differentia. Argue vehemently that this differentiation is artificial and violates Article 14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality). The employer cannot pick and choose beneficiaries for the same benefit arbitrarily.

3. Flawed and Opaque CTC Calculation:
Highlight that the CTC formula was undefined at the time of your rejection. The respondent's method of excluding employer's EPF contribution is a flawed calculation that artificially suppressed your previous CTC. Argue that a proper, standardized CTC calculation, including all standard components like employer PF, would have made you eligible.

4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
Stress that no documents were sought from you in 2013, and the "rule was also unknown." This denied you a fair opportunity to present your case or clarify the CTC computation, a fundamental breach of natural justice.

Recommendation:
Your lawyer should draft a strong Rejoinder Affidavit focusing on these points. The narrative should be that your rejection was not based on a uniformly applied, pre-existing rule, but on a retrospectively applied, discriminatorily implemented, and opaquely calculated criterion. The court's intervention is needed to correct this administrative arbitrariness and ensure equitable treatment. The goal is to convince the court that the employer's decision was not just an error, but an act of patent illegality and discrimination.