Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jayashree Anil Satheye, was employed as a Junior Hindi Translator at Currency Note Press, Nashik, appointed on July 17, 1984. She was promoted to Assistant Manager (Official Languages) on October 20, 1993, upon the formation of Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd. The respondent, Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd., rejected her request for bunching benefit under Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, by communication dated April 18, 2015. The petitioner challenged this rejection by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The legal issue was whether the proviso to Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) applied to her case, entitling her to pay fixation at a higher stage in the revised pay scale. The petitioner argued that she was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 6500 in the pre-revised scale at the time of her promotion, and that her junior was drawing the same pay, thus attracting the bunching provision. The respondent contended that the proviso did not apply because the petitioner's promotion was prior to January 1, 2006, and the fitment table did not result in bunching. The court analyzed the rule and found that the proviso is intended to prevent anomalies where persons drawing the same pay in the pre-revised scale are placed at different stages in the revised scale due to the fitment table. The court held that the petitioner's case squarely fell within the proviso, as she and her junior were drawing the same pay of Rs. 6500 in the pre-revised scale and were promoted to the same post. The court directed the respondent to refix the petitioner's pay by granting the benefit of bunching under the proviso to Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) and to pay arrears accordingly. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Fixation - Bunching Benefit - Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 - The petitioner, promoted before 1.1.2006, sought bunching benefit under the proviso to Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) which was rejected by the respondent. The court held that the proviso applies where two or more persons are drawing the same pay in the pre-revised scale and are promoted to the same post, and the fitment table results in different stages in the revised scale. The court found that the petitioner's case fell within the proviso and directed the respondent to refix her pay accordingly. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bunching under the proviso to Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, for fixation of her pay upon promotion prior to January 1, 2006.
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Respondent directed to refix petitioner's pay by granting benefit of bunching under proviso to Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, and pay arrears accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Bunching benefit
- Pay fixation
- Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008
- Proviso to Rule 7
- Pre-2006 promotion
- Fitment table
- Stage-to-stage comparison
