Sub (Clk SD) Rakesh Kumar Singh vs UOI & Others on 28 November 2025

O R D E R

28.11.2025

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 that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 12% 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 02.02.2002 and was mustered on 24.12.2002. While posted with 27 RR Battalion (Maratha Li), the Applicant was detailed to undergo CN Cadre SN-13, SN-14 and SN-15 for the period from 22.01.2007 to 04.03.2007, 12.02.2007 to 25.03.2007 and 19.03.2007 to 29.04.2007 respectively but despite clear directions by Record Office that he would be superseded, if not detailed to attend promotion cadre, he was not permitted to undergo above mentioned SN cadres along with his batchmates which resulted in his supersession for the rank of Naik and the rank of Havildar subsequently. Thereafter, the Applicant was promoted to the ranks of Naik, Havildar, Nb Sub and Subedar on 02.10.2007, 20.04.2010, 08.07.2017 and 01.03.2021 respectively. The aggrieved Applicant filed

Statutory Complaint on 25.07.2016 for grant of ante-date seniority which was allowed by the Competent Authority on 17.08.2017 and the Applicant was granted full redressal by granting ante-date seniority for the ranks of Naik and Havildar along with consequential benefits along with his batch-mates, without any retrospective effect of pay and allowances. Accordingly, the applicant was granted ante-date seniority for the rank of Naik from 25.08.2007 to 01.05.2007 and Havildar from 01.10.2009 to 01.04.2009 vide Bombay Engineer Group Record letter No 15569747Y/Prom/13/CA1 dt 18.10.2017. The Applicant submits that he was superseded for the rank of Naik and subsequently to the rank of Havildar for no fault of his and subsequently his seniority was restored along with his batchmates, therefore, he is entitled for stepping up of pay at par with his batchmates. After grant of ante-date seniority, the Applicant’s unit wrote a letter on 18.03.2021 to Record Office Bombay Engineer Group for stepping up of pay of the Applicant along with comparative statement, 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 case of the Applicant was processed with PAO (OR), BEG Khadki to consider/ release pay and allowances who in turn intimated that the difference in basic pay of the Applicant and his junior JC-354035H Sub/Clk (SD) Santosh Kumar Singh is because his junior Santosh Kumar Singh opted to shift to 7th CPC wef 01.04.2017, ie., the date of grant of MACP, however, the Applicant gave no option. Further, difference in Basic Pay of the Applicant and JC- 354042Y Sub/Clk (SD) Sanjeev Kumar Ojha is because Sub Sanjeev Kumar Ojha gave option at the time of his promotion to Nb Sub rank but the Applicant had not given any option at the time of promotion to the rank of Nb Sub. Hence, the case of the Applicant is unfit for stepping up. as the difference in Basic Pay is because of not exercising of the option for pay fixation by the Applicant. On grant of MACP to the rank of Nb Sub wef 01.04.2017, Sub Santosh Kumar Singh exercised option to switch over to the 7th CPC structure, whereas no such option was available to opt to switch over to the 7th CPC by the Applicant as he got promotion to the rank of Nb Sub after 03.05.2017. As per Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter No 1(4)/2021/D (Pay/Services) dt 23.05.2023, defence forces personnel who were promoted/financially upgraded between 01.01.2016 and the date of notification, ie., 03.05.2017 can exercise the option to switch over to the 7th CPC structure. In the present case, the Applicant was not eligible to exercise the option after 03.05.2017 as he was promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar on 08.07.2017, ie., after cut off date of 03.05.2017. Further, the date of promotion to the rank of Naik and Havildar in respect of junior is prior to the Applicant. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that there is no anomaly in fixation of Basic Pay of the Applicant. The OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant may be allowed to exercise his option afresh and approach the Respondents to consider his case based on the fresh option exercised by the Applicant.

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

6. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was not permitted to attend CN Cadres due to which he was superseded for promotion to the rank of Naik and consequently to the rank of Havildar. Based on the Statutory Complaint filed by the Applicant, he was granted ante-date seniority along with his batchmates and he was brought at par with his batchmates.

7. The Respondents have submitted in their Reply Statement that Sub Santosh Kumar Singh had exercised option to switch over to the 7th CPC as he was promoted to the rank of Nb Sub before 03.05.2017 whereas the Applicant was promoted to the rank of Nb Sub on 08.07.2017, ie., after the cut off date of 03.05.2017 for exercise of option for fixation of pay. Based on the Statutory Complaint, the Applicant’s seniority was restored from 25.08.2007 to 01.05.2007. Had he been promoted to the rank of Naik on 01.05.2007, he would have got two increments on 01.07.2007 as per the provisions of 6th CPC, ie., one annual increment and one increment for promotion. Since, he was promoted to the rank of Naik on 02.10.2007 (ADS 28.08.2007), he could not be granted the benefit of one additional increment. Again he was physically promoted to the rank of Havildar on 20.04.2010 (ADS 01.10.2009). Based on his Statutory Complaint, he was granted ante-date seniority for Havildar rank from 01.10.2009 to 01.04.2009. Had he physically assumed the rank of Havildar along with his batchmates on 01.04.2009, he would have also earned one additional increment before 01.07.2009. Since, he was promoted on 20.04.2010 (ADS 01.10.2009), he lost one increment as on 01.07.2007. Though, the Applicant has been granted ante-date seniority, but in terms of fixation of pay, he suffered financial loss. Subsequently, the Applicant was physically promoted to the rank of Nb Sub on 08.07.2017 and as acceded to by the Respondents, his junior Sub Santosh Kumar Singh was promoted to the rank of Nb Sub before 03.05.2017. Had the Applicant been promoted to the rank of Nb Sub along with his batchmates before 03.05.2017, he could have exercised option for fixation of pay, as the same would have been beneficial to him. Therefore, the Applicant’s pay was not fixed at par with his juniors.

8. Taking note of overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the prayer of the Applicant to reconsider his case after exercise of fresh option , we direct that in case the Applicant makes a fresh representation with regard to the prayer in his OA along with fresh option certificates within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, the Respondents shall examine the case of the Applicant in terms of existing rules/rules/policies within a period of four months thereafter and the outcome thereof shall be communicated to the Applicant.

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

10. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-