High Court · 2012

In the instant case also, the grievance of the petitioners is that pursu ant to the refixation done in terms of the ROP Rules of 1990, their pay has been fixed at a stage which is lower than the total emolument which they used to dra w before the ROP rules came into being. In this connection, the petitioners have referred to the tabular chart under paragraph 4 of the writ petition. As per th e said chart, their refixation of pay was at the stage of Rs. 1125/- as against the total emolument they used to draw at Rs. 1158/-. In the counter affidavit filed by the Handloom and Textile Department, i t has been stated that refixation was done correctly and that the petitioners ca nnot have any grievance against such refixation. Similar plea has been taken by the Finance Department in their counter affidavit. In paragraph 14 of the said a ffidavit, it has been indicated that the petitioners’ pay was fixed at a higher rate than what they used to get as total emoluments under the pre-revised scale of pay. While indicating the same, the Finance Department has taken the dearness allowance to be @ of 102.9%. Another stand taken by the respondents in their co unter affidavit that the petitioners having not exercised their option, their pa y was fixed as per the provisions of Rule 8(4) of the ROP Rules, 1990. The said provisions reads as follows :- (cid:28)(4) If the declaration of a Government servant regarding option is not received within the time mentioned in sub-rule(1) he shall be brought over to th e revised scale with effect from 1st January, 1989 or the date of appointment, i f it happens to be later than 1st January, 1989 as the case may be. (cid:29) In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners, the calculation sho wn by the Finance Department in their counter affidavit has been called in quest ion showing the rate of DA as 111.3% and on that basis, the total emoluments as Rs. 1158/- as against the fixation of pay at Rs. 1125/-. Needless to say that rate of dearness allowance does not remain static a nd it varies from time to time depending upon the factors responsible towards in crease in the DA. It being the specific case of the petitioners that their pay w ould not have been fixed at a stage lower than the total emolument they used to receive under the pre-revised scale of pay, the respondents ought to have dealt with that aspect of the matter, taking note of the rate of DA which was applicab le at that point of time. In this connection, Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to Rule 11(2) and (3) of the ROP Rules which is reproduced below :- (cid:28)(2) Where a Government servant entering service on or after the 1st Jan uary, 1989 but before the publication of these rules, retains the existing scale under Rule 6 and is brought over to the revised scale with effect from a date s ubsequent to the date of his appointment, his initial pay in the revised scale s hall be fixed under the Fundamental Rules provided that it shall not be less th an the emolument admissible to him in the existing scale on the date from which he is brought over to the revised scale and the period during which he drew that emolument shall be counted for increment in the stage of the revised scale at w hich his initial pay is fixed. (cid:29) (3) If the emolument referred to in sub-rules (1) and (2) does not corre spond to a stage in the revised scale and is intermediate between two stages, pa y would be fixed at the higher of the two stages. (cid:29) Rule 9(3) of the said Rules is also quoted below :- (cid:28)9(3) It should be seen that in no case there is reduction in the emolum ent of a Government servant. If in any case the pay fixed in the revised scale h appens to be lower than the emolument of the Government service, the difference shall be allowed as personal pay to be merged in the next increment. This protec tion shall be given only at the time of initial fixation of pay in the revised s cale and not thereafter. (cid:29) In view of the above, the matter needs re-consideration of the responden ts consistently with the observations made above and strictly in terms of the pr ovisions of the ROP Rules of 1990. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disp osed of directing the respondents to look into the grievance of the petitioners for refixation of their pay so that the same does not amount to fixation at a st age which is lesser than the total emolument which they used to receive under th e pre-revised scale of pay. Let the entire exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible, pre ferably within 31.01.2013. Both the writ petitions are disposed of in the above manner, without how ever, any order as to costs.