Ex Hav & MACP III Bv Sub Ramdeen vs UOI & Others on 24 July 2025

O R D E R

24.07.2025

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for stepping up of his basic pay at par with his junior and, accordingly, fix his Service Pension wef 01.09.2019 and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 8% per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army in Group “Y” on 28.08.1995 and after rendering more than 24 years of service, he was discharged from Service on 31.08.2019. At the time of discharge, his Service Pension has been fixed @ Rs. 23,138/- pm, ie 50% of last pay drawn (Rs. 40,400/- pay in pay matrix + Rs 5200/- MSP + Rs. 675/- Class Pay = Rs. 46,275/-). The Applicant submits that as per statement of account for the month of June 2019, the Applicant was getting Basic Pay of Rs. 39,200/- pm whereas his junior, Hav Siba Prasad Mishra was getting Basic Pay of Rs. 40,645/- pm. After getting increment on 01.07.2019, the Applicant’s pay in pay matrix was fixed @ Rs. 40,645/- whereas pay of his junior, Hav Siba Prasad Mishra was fixed @ Rs. 41,600/- pm. While in service, the Applicant made representations on 23.04.2018 (Annexure A/4) and 25.07.2019 (Annexure A/5) for stepping up of his pay to bring it at par with his junior duly supported with comparative statement but the Respondents paid no heed. After retirement, the Applicant also made representation on 01.09.2019 for stepping up of Basic Pension, but to no avail (Annexure A/7). In support of his claim, the Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal Nos 65-67 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos 12512-12514 of 2007 decided on 09.01.2009 titled “Er. Gurcharan Singh Grewal & Anr Vs Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors, 2009 (2) SLJ 271 (SC)” and reiterated that a senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior and, hence, his Basic Pay should be stepped up at par with his junior, especially when the Applicant was promoted and granted financial upgradations before his junior and was never superseded for promotion/ financial upgradation. The Applicant issued Legal Notice dt 20.06.2022 to the Respondents for stepping up of Basic Pay and consequent revision of Service Pension, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement. While not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that the Applicant was granted ACP Nk on 28.08.2005 and his Basic Pay was fixed @ Rs. 7220/- pm. His junior was granted MACP in Nk Grade wef 01.01.2006, ie., after implementation of 6th CPC and, thus, his Basic Pay was fixed @ Rs. 7750/- pm. The final basic adjustment in Final Settlement of Account was Rs. 42,300/-. Since the junior was drawing more pay due to the grant of MACP, as such the comparison of pay cannot be admitted in terms of Para 9 of IHQ of MoD (Army) letter No B/33513/ACP/AG/PS-2(C) dt 13.06.2021. MACP-III (Nb Sub Grade) and re-fixation of Basic Pay and increments due to MACP III Nb

Sub was already adjusted in 08/2019 and last Basic Pay was Rs. 42,300/- correctly adjusted in FSA. 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. Perusal of records reveals that the Applicant was enrolled in Army before his junior and was granted ACP upgradation/ regular promotion to the next ranks before his junior. There is nothing on record which reveals that the Applicant was lacking criteria for financial upgradation/promotion and was superseded for the same at any point during his service. Hon’ble AFT (PB), New Delhi vide Order dt 10.12.2014 in OA No 113/2014 in the case of Chittar Singh Vs UOI & Ors, and Order dt 15.05.2018 in OA No 366/2016 in the case of Hav/AEC Ram Mehar & Ors Vs UOI & Ors has settled that a senior who is enrolled before the junior cannot be granted less pay to his junior. In the present case, the Applicant as well as his junior are similarly placed. The Basic Pay of the Applicant has been fixed less than his junior only due to the fact that he was granted ACP promotion before implementation of 6th CPC and his junior is granted MACP benefits after implementation of 6th CPC. Moreover, the PAO (OR), Corps of Signals has also clarified that the pension of the Applicant @ Rs. 23,750/- as per PPO is correct as he had been given the benefit of MACP-III at the time of FSA, thus fixing his pay @ Rs. 42,300/-. Since classification pay is not included while calculating pension for PBORs (post 7th CPC – level 6 onwards), the pension being drawn by the Applicant @ Rs. 23,750/- is correct.

6. Taking note of overall facts, we direct the Respondents to reconsider the case of the Applicant for stepping up of his Pay at par with his juniors within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order in accordance with extant rules/policies and AFT (PB) judgments in the case of Sub Chittar Singh (Supra) and Hav/AEC Ram Mehar (Supra), if applicable.

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

8. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J) Ssy/-