Ex SubSKT Dalip Kumar Sharma (Army) vs UOI & Others on 31 August 2026

O R D E R

31.08.2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying therein for the following reliefs:- (a) The Applicant be granted pay scales of Nb Sub onwards with effect from 03.03.2006 based on multiplication factor of 1.86 on the last pay drawn based upon 5th CPC.

(b) The pay scales of the Applicant on implementation of 6th CPC be fixed according to multiplication of 5th CPC Pay Scales and same be revised on promotion to rank of Subedar.

(c) That the pension scales be revised based on fresh pay scales based on multiplication option wef 1-5-2017 be revised as the Applicant had exercised option for multiplication option, the best option.

(d) The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to award suitable compensation to Applicant for undue financial loss caused to him by Respondents for no reason.

(e) Any other relief, which Hon’ble Tribunal thinks just and proper in the matter may also be granted to the Applicant.

2. The brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 18.10.1986andafter rendering more than 29 years of service, he was discharged from Service on 30.04.2016. The 6th CPC was implemented wef 01.01.2006 and Para 14(b) (iv) of SAI 1/S/2008 dt 11.10.2008 stipulates that on promotion, if no option is exercised by the individual, PAO (ORs) will regulate fixation on promotion ensuring that the more beneficial of the two options mentioned above is allowed to the PBOR. On promotion of the Applicant to the rank of Nb Sub on 03.03.2006, he did not exercise option for fixation of pay on the simple impression that his pay shall be revised by PAO (OR) in terms of Para 14 (b) (iv) of SAI 1/S/2008. However, his pay was revised to Rs. 9300/- pm, ie., at the minimum pay scale of Nb Sub as per 6th CPC instead of Rs. 10,460/- after applying multiplication factor with Rs 5620/- (5620x1.86= Rs. 10,460/-). Thereafter, on promotion to the rank of Subedar on 01.04.2014, the pay of the Applicant was fixed @ Rs. 14000/- pm while pay of his contemporaries was fixed @ Rs. 16,160/- pm. Accordingly, at the time of his discharge from Service on 30.04.2016, his Basic Pension was fixed @ Rs. 11,970/- pm against Rs. 12,690/- pm to his contemporaries. The Applicant submits that on promotion of the Applicant to the rank of Nb Sub on 03.03.2006, the PAO (OR) BEG should have revised his pay after applying multiplication factor of 1.86 with Rs. 5620/- in terms of Para 14 (b) (iv) of SAI 1/S/2008 as it was beneficial to the Applicant. In support of his claim, the Applicant has placed reliance on AFT (PB), New Delhi Order dt 10.12.2014 in OA No 113/2014 in the case of Sub Chittar Singh Vs UOI & Ors and connected matters and prayed for fixation of his pay on 03.03.2006 after applying multiplication factor with Rs. 5620/- pm and, subsequently, on promotion to the rank of Subedar on 01.04.2014, his pay should be fixed @ Rs. 16,160/- pm instead of Rs. 14,000/- pm. The Applicant made representation as also issued Legal Notice to the Respondents for fixation of pay as mentioned above, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have submitted a detailed reply. While not disputing the basic facts represented by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted thatGovt of India, Ministry of Defence vide their letter No

1(5)/2012/D(Pay/Services) dt 17.02.2014 has clarified that all Armed Forces personnel whose date of increment in pre-revised scale was between Feb 2006 to Jun 2006, are eligible to exercise option for fixation of their pay in 6th CPC pay structure irrespective of whether they had opted earlier or otherwise and also either wef 01.01.2006 or any other date subject to the conditions that (i) The date of increment in the pre-revised scale was between Feb 2006 and Jun 2006 and (ii) the revised option/fresh option should have been submitted before 31.07.2013. In the present case, the Applicant failed to submit the option form for revision of his basic pay as per 6th CPC within the stipulated timeframe. Therefore, re-fixation of pay of the Applicant for the rank of Nb Sub has been fixed correctly from his date of promotion in accordance with 6th CPC. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have heard Counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was promoted to the rank of Nb Sub on 03.03.2006, ie., between Feb 2006 to Jun 2006 and, hence, he was not eligible for fixation of pay by applying multiplication factor of 1.86 as it was not a case of earning an increment between Feb-Jun 2006 in terms of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dt 17.02.2014 ibid and his pay was to be refixed on promotion to the rank of Nb Sub on 03.03.2006. However, since he had not exercised option for fixation of pay after his promotion within stipulated timeframe, his pay was not revised by applying multiplication factor 1.86 as it had already been done wef 01.01.2006.

6. It has also been seen that the Applicant has filed this OA after five of his discharge from Army and raised the issue of revision of his pay wef 03.03.2006. Normally such service matters cannot be raised after a period of three years. Since his pay was revised wef 03.03.2006 on his promotion to the rank of Nb Sub, he should have raised the matter within a reasonable period of say three years and during his service only.

7. However, notwithstanding above, we dispose off the OA with directions to the Respondents to re-consider the case of the Applicant for revision of pay, if admissible, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order in accordance with extant rules/policy directives on the matter and AFT (PB), New Delhi judgment in the case of Sub Chittar Singh (Supra). The outcome thereof shall be intimated to the Applicant.

8. The OA is disposed off, accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

9. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-