[jitendra nath]

Sir very very thanks to you for such guidelines.
In Rafiq Masih vs State of Punjab SC judgment is as below.
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service
(or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire
within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been
made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery
is issued.
My father, a group C employee was permitted to take VRS due to Lyrings Cancer and Radiotherapy in 2005. Up to 2014 there was some excess payment so recovery was made.Patna high court stayed over recovery by citing SC judgment in Rafiq Masih. But in final judgment despite mentioning Cancer, 8.5 year excess payment, group C employee and mistake by Bank, recovery has been allowed in the name that petitioner might be knowing that he is getting excess payment.
Whereas after Radiotherapy to both sides of his face he is leading his life any how.
Sir, Now please guide me whether I should file review or should I go to SC? Moreover it will be too tough for my father to come to Delhi.

[jitendra nath]

Sir, sorry to disturb you again. I have to say about the example of S-32 pay scale and other 6th CPC scales. Actually there is no direct recruitment in these scales. Thus the person has got already the benefit of pay revision in their basic, as on date of pay revision and no comparison with any other in absence of direct recruitment in that cadre. So almost where there is direct recruitment, this fact has taken into consideration. Whether it is 8000-13500. 8000×1.86 = 14880/ But initial of revised is 15600/
Similarly for 5000-8000. 5000×1.86=9300/ And the initial is 9300 of 9300-34800/ Rest in the same bands are almost promoted cadre and no direct recruitment. And even if there is any it has been tried to neutralize it with the concept of Entry pay which does not stick to minimum of revised scale only. Thanks Sir

[jitendra nath]

Very very thankful to you sir. I did not expect such a nice response from a senior lawyer and more than that from an IPS officer. I will try my best to remove this anomaly but being a common man I don’t know up to which extent I will be able to take it.Again thanks sir.

[jitendra nath]

Sir,
The legal aspect: Based on judgment of Honorable Supreme Court in D S Nakara vs UOI, Honorable Calcutta High Court has given judgment in Mr. Ibrahim Mullah and others vs UoI. Para no. 14 of this judgment is reproduced here. “The question is whether this classification of the two groups for the purpose of fixation of pay stands the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The law is now settled that classification permissible under Article 14 must satisfy two conditions, namely, (i) it must be founded on an intelligible differentia which, distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the measure in question”. Further the differentia and the object must be different and object itself cannot be the basis of classification. Further this Para no. 14 says “If the classification is not reasonable and does not satisfy the two conditions referred to above, the impugned legislative or executive action would plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of equality under Article 14 would be breached”. IS THERE ANY INTANGIBLE DIFFERENTIA BETWEEN EMPLOYEE OF 2006 BATCHES AND EMPLOYEE OF 2007 BATCH WHICH HAS A RATIONAL RELATION? BOTH ARE RECRUITED UNDER SAME RR.BOTH ARE DIRECT RECRUITEE. Second section of Para no. 14 of this is also reproduced here.”That is, for the same work and same functions, the appellants would get less pay than the other group of senior draughts men. The explanation is that this division is based on seniority. This cannot be accepted as sufficient to meet the requirements of law. BY SENIORITY, A SENIOR DRAUGHTSMAN WILL GET HIGHER PAY WITH THE INCREMENTS THAT HE EARNS PROPORTIONATE TO THE NUMBER OF YEARS HE IS IN SERVICE.” “It is needless to mention that the main purpose of pay revision is generally to make upward revision of pay of employees necessitated by a host of reasons, such as, fall in rupee value, the rising cost of maintenance of livelihood etc.

I have approached to DPE but they say that it is a question of fixation and it is in the domain of PSU. They also in a reply to my RTI said that DPE had not issued any guidelines to appoint only at minimum of revised scale.

[jitendra nath]

Even 2nd PRC kept these facts in to consideration and recommended 5 different sets of revised scale and fitment namely A+, A, B, C, D. Fitment for A+ type CPSE was recommended to 30 % and for D type CPSE 3 %. Based on this, E1 scale for A+ type CPSE was recommended to 20700-33800 and E1 scale for D type CPSE 16400-27000. The same for E2, E3, E4 etc. (2nd PRC recommendation is attached here). So in each type of CPSE there was a relation between fitment (for pre revision appointee) and revised scale (for post revision appointee). Thus in the 2nd PRC recommendation the minimum of revised scale was incorporated with the quantum of fitment and the harmony between pre revised basic and minimum of revised basic was fine. But DPE selected randomly A+ type fitment and D type revised scale for each CPSE. Thus relation between pre and post pay revision basic got broken. Keeping above fact into consideration, DPE did not issue any guidelines to appoint only at the minimum of revised scale for post 01.01.2007 appointed executive but CPSE takes it as a general practice to appoint at minimum of revised scale.

Even in 6th CPC there is a term ENTRY PAY for post revision appointed (direct recruitment) employee which is not the minimum of the revised scale.In 6th CPC the multiplication factor was 1.86 and in band 1,2,3 the first scale is generally the entry level (direct) post and rest are promoted . And in each band the minimum of the revised is even more than the minimum of pre revised multiplied by 1.86. 5000x 1.86 = 9300/. 800×1.86=14880 (less than 15600)/
And even if a direct recruitment in 2nd or 3rd scale in a pay band there is an entry pay which is more than the minimum of revised. Thus kept this anomaly in view.

[jitendra nath]

Thanks Sir, You got the point. In my case it is not the 6th CPC but 2nd PRC for PSU. As I am a sufferer I have researched a lot despite being not a lawyer. What I found is that The minimum of revised scale is incorporated with the quantum of fitment and DA which is to be merged. Thus the methodology is different for pre revision appointed employee and post revision appointed employee but the benefit remains same. If a scale is 5k-15k and fitment is 20%, DA merger is 50% then the revised scale starts with almost 5kx1.2×1.5= 9k. And revised scale may be 9k-30k. Thus even the minimum of revised scale gives the same benefit.

The same can be verified in 7th CPC recommendation in table 5, where the entry basic for post 2016 is just the entry pay of pre revised basic multiplied by multiplication factor which comes after merging of DA and amount of fitment. And there is absolute zero difference between pre revised and post revised.

[jitendra nath]

Sir, in short just imagine a situation where one person recruited (direct recruitment) with recruitment year 2006 and appointed in December 2006 on 8600 of scale 8600-14600 (pre revised) and other appointed in march 2007 with recruitment (direct recruitment) year 2007 again with pre revised scale at 8600/ because of absence of revised scale effective from 01.01.2007.But after pay revision the methodology to revise the basic in pre revised scale (which came in june 2009 but effective from 01.012007 ) is as below. pre 01.01.2007 appointed employee were given 78.2% Da merger and 30 % fitment. Thus pre revision appointee basic turned in to 8600×1.782×1.3=19930.
Whereas the post 01.01.2007 are being given the minimum of revised scale only .i.e 16400 of 16400-40500/ . Thus when there was not a difference of one increment turned more than 20% .As the increment depebds on 3% of present basic this difference is increasing year by year.

Please sir help us.

[jitendra nath]

Sir,thanks for responding. Actually 2nd PRC itself came into picture in April 2009 but effective from 01.01.2007. So one direct recruitment was done in year 2006 with notification year 2006 and were appointed on basic 8600 in the pre revised scale of E1 (8600-14600) on May 2006. Another direct recruitment took place in June 2007 with same RR but with notification year of 2007.As the 2nd prc was not in picture in june 2007 basic was fixed at 8600 with same scale of 8600-14600. Thus on june 2007 the basic was of a person appointed in May 2006 was 8600+250=8850/ and appointed on May 2007 was 8600/ . Similarly in june 2009 (when 2nd prc was implemented w.e.f 01.01.2007 ), basic of appointed in may 2006 was 8600+ 250+250+250 =9350 and of appointed on June 2007 was 8600+250+250 = 9100. But as the 2nd prc was w.e f 01.01.07 and on 01.01.2007 the basic of may 2006 appointee was 8600 their basic was fixed with 78.2% Da merger and 30% fitment thus on 01.01.2007 the basic became 8600×1.78×1.3= 19930 in the revised scale of E1 (16400-40500). But the june 2007 appointee were refixed on 16400 (the minimum ) on June 2007.Thus the difference which was only 250 (one increment) became 19930-16400= 3530/ on June 2007.

[Author]

Posts