199. Daily Rules Recap - Clarification about application of Rule 5 in revised option under Rule 10 of CCS RP Rules – A retrograde order
• Based on the Madhavarao case judgment delivered by the Hyderabad CAT (Central Administrative Tribunal), the Department of Posts (DOP) issued a revised option to switch over to the revised pay structure of the 7th CPC (Central Pay Commission) via its letter No. 02-17/2022-PAP dated January 31, 2023.
• This order was subsequently challenged by DPAs (presumably Directorate Postal Assistants or a similar group), who sought clarification regarding the applicability of Rule 5 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules.
• As per Rule 5 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, the option for pay fixation is provideonly for promotions or upgradations that took place up to July 25, 2016 (the date of notification of the said rules).
• The Department of Posts sought clarification on this matter. The Ministry of Finance (MOF), through its ID Note 03-03/2018-E.III dated April 16, 2024, clarified that opting for pay fixation in the revised pay structure after the date of notification of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2016 (i.e., July 25, 2016) is not in consonance with the provisions of Rule 5.
• Consequently, the DOP withdrew its January 31, 2023, orders and directed the cancellation of benefits granted based on those orders.
• A file noting concerning this decision, obtained under RTI (Right to Information), indicates that the fundamental question raised by the CAT judgment was not reviewed. As per the CAT judgment in the Madhavarao case, there was a specific direction to elaborate on the phrase "subsequent increment" mentioned in Rule 5 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules.
• However, the Department of Expenditure (DOE) has not defined this term in its letter dated May 26, 2024, or in the file noting, which may not be correct and is not in line with the Court's direction. It is noteworthy that previous Pay Commissions allowed options to be exercised after subsequent increments.
• Instead of defining "subsequent increments" as directed by the Court, the DOE has, in my opinion, only clarified the situation in a manner that denies rightful benefits and vitiates the content and crux of the judgment.
• The affected individuals, who are now facing significant recoveries, may consider filing a case through a competent advocate.
DG(P) No. 02-17/2022-PAP (Part I) dated 26.5.2024)
Post a Comment