T Narayana Rao vs PR ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) TELANGANA HYDERABAD on 31 December 2025

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon'ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member)

By this OA, the applicant has sought the following relief: “…..to direct the respondents to grant one increment for the completed service of 12 months on 1st January 2008 or allow to come to the WO scale on 1st July 2007, in place of 14-02-2007; to end the discrimination and pass such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant submits that he was selected by the Union Public Service Commission in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department for the post of Welfare Officer during 2007, which was meant exclusively for Senior Audit Officers with 6 years of service in that cadre. Upon his selection, he took charge of the Welfare Officer on 14.02.2007. The applicant submits that though the Welfare Officer post is within the department requiring assumption of higher responsibilities instead of treating it as a regular promotion as per the publication of UPSC, it is treated as an Ex-Cadre post, and no option is allowed in the revised scale, and the pay is fixed on 14.02.2007 in the post of Welfare Officer (WO). Thereafter, he was also granted an increment in the pre-revised scale on 14.02.2008, and his pension was fixed. This increment is withdrawn in the revised scale, resulting in reduction of pension and recovery of amounts.

3. The introduction of new pay scales of the 6th CPC, with a uniform date of increment on 1st July, the increment in the new scale is not given to

U

ADI LAXMI Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.25 19:39:42+05'30' F i PDF R d V i him, as 6 months of service was not completed by 01.07.2007 (4.5 months), and he retired on 14.02.2008, retiring before the due date of the next increment on 01.07.2008. The applicant submits that he was not granted the increment for 12.5 months of service in the cadre of WO. Thus, there is an anomalous situation on account of denial of any increment, though he has put in more than the required 12 months of service under FR 24 in the time scale of Welfare Officer.

4. The Applicant submits that when he had approached the High Court in WP No. 38275 of 2013, the Hon'ble High Court ordered on 01.09.2022 that "the Petitioner submit a representation to the Respondents in terms of OM dated 31.07.2018, and the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible." Accordingly, he submitted the representation on 17.04.2023, and Respondent No. 3 has rejected the representation on 13.06.2023. Hence, it has resulted in denial of increment to him during his last 12 and ½ months (more than one year) of service, which is in violation of FR 22, where it is stipulated that the increment is drawn as a matter of course.

5. After Notice, respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed a detailed reply opposing the relief, stating that the applicant was appointed as Welfare Officer on 14.02.2007. As per the provisions of IA & AD (Welfare Officer) Recruitment Rules 2000 (previously 1974), the only method of recruitment to the post of Welfare Officer is by deputation in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. He assumed the charge of Welfare Officer on 14.02.2007, and his pay was fixed in the pre-

U

ADI LAXMI Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.25 19:39:42+05'30' F i PDF R d V i revised scales under FR 22 from the date of his assumption of charge as Welfare Officer. The applicant retired on superannuation on 29.02.2008, and his pension was fixed as per the pay that he drew on the date of retirement.

6. The respondents have further submitted that earning an increment is to render a minimum qualifying service of 12 months, which is revised to 6 months by the 6th CPC. As the CCS (RP) Rules 2008 made 1st July of every year the uniform date of increment, the applicant had not rendered 6 months of service as on 1st July 2007 from the date of his fixation of pay as Welfare Officer, i.e., on 14.02.2007. Hence, the increment would have accrued to him only on 01.07.2008. But the applicant in this case retired on superannuation on 29.02.2008. Consequent to the implementation of the 6th CPC, options were called for from the employees and pensioners alike to come over to the revised pay structure. The option exercised by the applicant was inadvertently admitted, and his pay was fixed from the date of accrual of the next increment, i.e., on 01.07.2007. Accordingly, the first instalment of 40% arrears of pay was paid, duly obtaining an undertaking from him that any excess amount paid on account of the erroneous fixation of pay would be recovered from 60% of arrears due to him. The Pay & Accounts Officer, in a letter dated 21.04.2009, stated that the post of Welfare Officer happens to be an ex-cadre post, and as such, the option under FR 22(I) for fixation of pay from the date of the next increment cannot be exercised by Sri T. Narayana Rao. The PAO asked this office to revise the pay and recalculate the arrears and to adjust the excess amount paid in 40% arrears from the 60% arrears of pay due to him. Accordingly,

U

ADI LAXMI Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.25 19:39:42+05'30' F i PDF R d V i the fixation of pay of the applicant was revised, and excess amounts paid were adjusted in the 60% arrears.

7. The respondents have further submitted that aggrieved by the revised fixation and recovery of excess paid pay & allowances, the applicant submitted a representation dated 03.09.2009 to the C&AG of India (Headquarters Office), through proper channel to the Ministry of Finance, GOI, stating that the action taken by the Office of PAG (G&SSA), Andhra Pradesh, to revise the pay fixation and adjustments of amounts from 60% arrears is wrong. In response to his representation, the Headquarters office, in a letter dated 26.02.2010, confirmed that the applicant is not entitled to exercise his option for fixation of pay and the revised pay arrived at is in order. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed an OA No. 598 of 2010 before the Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 14.09.2009 issued by the then PAG (CA) (now AG (Audit)) and proceedings dated 26.02.2010 issued by the C&AG of India.

8. It is submitted that the CAT in its Order dated 12.08.2013, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant rules governing the appointment of Welfare Officer, held that "the option of coming to the scale of Welfare Officer from the date of the next increment is not available for appointment on deputation to an ex-cadre post, and therefore, the department has rightly fixed the pay initially in the pre- revised scales and thereafter in the revised scales, and there is no error in the case of the applicant," and dismissed it. Aggrieved by the decision of

U

ADI LAXMI Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.25 19:39:42+05'30' F i PDF R d V i

the Tribunal, the applicant filed Writ Petition No. 38275 of 2013 before the Hon'ble High Court, Telangana, with a prayer to direct the respondents to reconsider the option exercised by him as per the clarifications issued by the Govt. of India from time to time and re-fix his pay as on 1st July 2007 and also to refund the amount of Rs. 29,368/- which was recovered as overpayment. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 01.09.2022 of Hon'ble High Court, with directions to the respondent that if the petitioner submits a representation, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the applicant submitted representations, which were considered by the Competent Authority but the request was not acceded.

9. He joined as Welfare Officer on 14.02.2007, his pay was fixed in the post on the day he assumed the charge. Since the applicant did not complete 6 months of prescribed qualifying service (after the initial fixation of pay) to be eligible to earn increment as prescribed under CCS (RP) Rules 2008, on 1st July 2007 and the applicant superannuated on 29.02.2008.

10. The respondents have further submitted that the OM dated 31.07.2018 is applicable for those Pensioners/Employees, who have retired/have been serving during the 7th CPC regime on or after 01.01.2016. The criterion for earning an increment is to render a minimum qualifying service of 12 months, which was revised to 6 months by the 6th CPC. The CCS (RP) Rules 2008, made 1st July of every year as the uniform date of increment, but, the applicant had not rendered 6 months of

U

ADI LAXMI Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.25 19:39:42+05'30' F i PDF R d V i service as on 1st July 2007 from the date of his fixation of pay as Welfare Officer, i.e., on 14.02.2007. The increment, as asked by him, would have accrued only on 01.07.2008, but for his superannuation on 29.02.2008. The contention of the applicant is not correct and legally valid.

11. The respondents have further submitted that two other officials were appointed to the post of Welfare Officer on 26.08.2009 and 23.07.2012, respectively. They too were not given any option under FR 22(1). They assumed charge of the post of Welfare Officer subsequent to the accrual of their annual increment on the 1st of July, and their pay was fixed (by granting an increment @ 3%) in the post of Welfare Officer from the date of assumption of charge. Thus, they were not given two increments on "promotion" as contended by the applicant.

12. The respondents have contended that the quoted case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 (SLP (C) No. 6185/2020 dated 11.04.2023) pertains to the issue of the grant of an annual increment earned on their last day of service, i.e., earned one day prior to retirement. The above judgment is not applicable in the case of the applicant, as he had retired from service on 29.02.2008, and his annual increment fell due on 01.07.2008 and not on the next day of his retirement.

13. The respondents have further contended that vide letter dated 14.09.2009, the applicant was informed by the office that he cannot exercise the option from the date of the next increment in the case of appointment to an ex-cadre post, and accordingly, his pay fixation in the Revised Pay Rules, 2008 is revised in terms of Rule FR 22(1). The

U

ADI LAXMI Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.25 19:39:42+05'30' F i PDF R d V i applicant was also informed that the excess amounts paid will be recovered from the 60% arrears. Thus, the action of the respondent to revise the fixation of his pay and pension and effect the recovery of Rs.29,638/- from the second installment of 60% arrears is in order. The averment of the applicant that the sanctioned increment was withdrawn without notice is incorrect and therefore denied.

14. The respondents have further contended that that the applicant was allowed to come to the ex-cadre post of Welfare Officer with effect from 14.02.2007, i.e., the date of his appointment as Welfare Officer. Since the applicant did not complete 6 months of prescribed qualifying service (after the initial fixation of pay) to be eligible to earn an increment as prescribed under CCS (RP) Rules 2008, he did not earn an increment on 1st July 2007. Normally, under the circumstances, the increment would only accrue on 01.07.2008, but, the applicant, in this case, retired on superannuation on 29.02.2008.

15. The respondents have further contended that as per the provisions of IAAD (Welfare Officer) Recruitment Rules 2000, the only method of recruitment to the post of Welfare Officer is by deputation in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. The OM dated 05.01.1994 states that an employee appointed on deputation/foreign service may elect to draw either the pay in the scale of pay of deputation/foreign service posts or his basic pay in the parent cadre plus deputation allowance thereon plus personal pay if any. The post of Welfare Officer happens to be an ex-cadre post, and as such, the option under FR 22(1) for fixation of pay from the date of the next increment cannot be exercised by the applicant.

U

ADI LAXMI Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.25 19:39:42+05'30' F i PDF R d V i

16. To refute the averments made in the reply, the applicant filed the rejoinder stating that several juniors were promoted on 23.07.2012 and 26.08.2009. The result was that they drew 2 increments, one on the 1st of July and another on the date of actual promotion.

17. In response to this rejoinder, the respondents filed an additional reply stating that since the applicant retired during 6th CPC regime, and the two dates of increments, viz., January 1st and July 1st came into effect w.e.f. 01.01.2016 during the 7th CPC period, this provisions cannot be extended to the applicant. The corrective steps in fixation of pay and recovery of excess drawn amount thereon have been made on the directions of Headquarters' office with the concurrence of the Department of Finance vide their letters dated 31.05.2011 and 26.05.2011, respectively, in response to Prl.AG(A&E), AP, Hyderabad DO letter dated 05.04.2011. Hon'ble CAT, vide their orders dated 12.08.2013 in OA No. 598 of 2010, also held that "the department has rightly fixed the pay initially in the pre-revised scales and thereafter in the revised scales, and we see no error in the case of the applicant." It is submitted that the methodology of fixation of pay and date of increment is within the purview of rules in vogue, which has also been upheld by Hon'ble CAT in its order dated 12.08.2013 in OA No. 598 of 2010. Thus, there was no violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

18. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

U

ADI LAXMI Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.25 19:39:42+05'30' F i PDF R d V i

19. The applicant had submitted that he was selected by the UPSC in Indian Audit Accounts Department for the post of Welfare Officer as per notification of UPSC. On completion of 12 months service the applicant was granted increment in the pre-revised scale on 14.02.2008 and his pension was also fixed. Since the 6th CPC brought a uniform date of increment i.e. 01st July and he has not completed 6 months of service on 01.07.2007 (4.5) months, he was not given the annual increment. The applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court in WP No.38275/2013 vide its order dt. 01.09.2022 directed the applicant to submit representation to the respondents, wherein he informed that the Government of India had issued Office Memorandum dt. 31.07.2018, which deals with the grant of increment. He expected that his grievance would be resolved under this Memorandum. Therefore, he requested permission of the Hon’ble Court to withdraw the petition with liberty to submit representation to the respondents in terms of Office Memorandum dt. 31.07.2018. The same was granted, but, the Respondent No.3 rejected the representation which resulted in denial of increment to the applicant during his last 12 and half month service, which as per him, is in violation of FR 22. The applicant also represented that several of his juniors were promoted on or after 1st July were granted normal increment on 1st July in SAO Scale and another on the same day for promotion. Thus, they were given two increments due to promotion. But, when he requested that his promotion dt. 14.02.2007 be postponed to 01.07.2007 to enable him to draw the annual increment in the cadre of SAO and then pay fixation in the scale of WO to enable him to get two increments, the request was refused by the CAG.

U

ADI LAXMI Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.25 19:39:42+05'30' F i PDF R d V i

20. The applicant in support of his contention is quoting the Hon’ble Supreme Court order in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023 @ SLP (C) 6185/2020 dt.11.04.2023 which directs that the increment should be given on completion of 12 months of service unless it is ordered to be stopped in the case of retired on 30th June. This is not applicable to the applicant.

21. Responding to the contentions of the applicant, the respondents have replied that the applicant was appointed as Welfare Officer on 14.02.2007 as per the provisions of IA & AD (Welfare Officer) Recruitment Rules 2000 (Previously 1974) on deputation in consultation with UPSC and his pay was fixed in the pre revised scale under FR 22 from the date of his assumption of charge of Welfare Officer. The applicant retired on superannuation on 29.08.2008 and his pension was fixed as per the pay drawn by him on the date of retirement. After the 6th CPC it is mandatory to complete 12 months qualifying service to claim the annual increment since the applicant had not completed 12 months of service on 1st July, 2007 from the date of his joining i.e. 12.02.2007 he was not given the annual increment.

22. Respondents have submitted that the Pay and Accounts Officer informed that since the post of Welfare Officer happens to be an Ex-cadre post and as such, the option under FR 22 (1) for fixation of pay from the date of next increment is not applicable to the applicant. Since 40% of the arrears of pay as per the earlier calculation (inadvertently) was paid to the applicant duly taking an undertaking, that “if any excess amount is paid on account of erroneous fixation the same would be recovered from 60% of

U

ADI LAXMI Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.25 19:39:42+05'30' F i PDF R d V i arrears as due to him”, the pay of the applicant was recalculated and the excess amount paid in 40% of arrears were adjusted in the 60% of the arrears of pay payable to him. Following which the applicant submitted a representation dt. 03.09.2009, and the respondents in their letter dt. 26.02.2010 responded that the applicant is not entitled to exercise his option for fixation of pay and the revised pay arrived at is in order. Aggrieved by the response of the respondents, applicant filed OA/598/2010 the Hon’ble CAT in its order dt. 12.08.2013 held that “the option of coming to the scale of Welfare Officer from the date of next increment is not available for appointment on deputation to an Ex-cadre post and therefore, the department has rightly fixed the pay initially in the pre revised scale and thereafter, in the revised scale and there is no error in the case of the applicant.

23. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the applicant has filed WP No.38275/2013 before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana with a prayer to direct the respondents to reconsider the option exercised by him as per the clarifications issued by the Government of India from time to time and re-fixed his pay as on 1st July, 2007 and also refund the amount of Rs.29,368/- which recovered as over payment. The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dt. 01.09.2022 with direction to the respondents that if the petitioner submits the representation respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Following these directions, the representation of the applicant was considered but rejected. As per the provisions of IA&AD (Welfare Officer Recruitment Rules 2000) for only method of

U

ADI LAXMI Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.25 19:39:42+05'30' F i PDF R d V i recruitment to the post of Welfare Officer is by deputation. In consultation with the UPSC in terms of FR 22(1)(a)(1) “Save in cases of appointment in deputation to an Ex-cadre post, or to a post on adhoc basis or on direct recruitment basis, the government servant shall have the option to be exercised within one month from the date of promotion or appointment as case may be to have the pay fixed under this rule from the date of such promotion or appointment or to have the pay fixed initially at the next cell in the level of the post to which he or she is promoted on regular basis and subsequently on the date of approval of next increment in the level of the post from which government servant is promoted, his pay shall be refixed and two increments (one or two an account of annual increments and the 2nd accrued on account of promotion) shall be granted in the level from which the government servant is promoted and he or she shall be placed at a cell equal to the figure so arrived in the level of the post to which he or she is promoted: and if no such cell is available in the level to which he or she is promoted, he or she shall be placed at the next higher cell in that level”.

24. This rule clearly and categorically states that the official who have been selected to a deputation post shall not have the option of option for pay fixation. The applicant has joined in the post of Welfare Officer on 14.02.2007 and his pay was fixed on the date he assumed the charge since he did not complete the 6 months of prescribed qualifying service to be eligible earned increments as prescribed under CCS (RP) Rules 2008, he was not sanctioned increments on 1st July, 2007.

25. The contention of the applicant that 2 other officials who were

U

ADI LAXMI Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.25 19:39:42+05'30' F i PDF R d V i appointed to the post of Welfare Officer were granted the option is not correct as per the reply submitted by the respondents. These two officials were appointed to the post of Welfare Officer on 26.08.2009 and 23.07.2012 respectively. They were also not given any option under FR 22(I) but they assumed the charge of Welfare Officer subsequently to the annual increment on 1st July. Therefore, their pay was fixed by granting @ 3% in the post of Welfare Officer from the date assumption of charge. They were not given two increments on promotion as contended by the applicant. The proceedings of the respondents (Office of the CAG) dt.26.02.2010 clarifies that “your pay on promotion as Welfare Officer has been fixed as per rules and Government of India instructions on the subject. You were appointed as Welfare Officer w.e.f. 14.02.2007, which is a deputation post and your pay was fixed in the pre revised scale under FR 22 by giving one notional increment in the lower scale and fixing the pay at next stage in the higher post as the option to come to the scale of Welfare Officer from the date of next increment is not available to appointment on deputation. However, your pay in the revised scale was fixed erroneously, according to your option i.e. with effect from the date of increment in the lower scale. Subsequently, when PAO pointed out the error, your pay was refixed and the excess paid amount was adjusted from the 60% arrears and you are informed about this fact by the Office of Principle AG (Civil Audit) (A.P. Hyderabad).” Further “your pay was fixed at the date of appointment as Welfare Officer i.e. 14.02.2007 and as you had not completed 6 months on 01.07.2007. Your increment on that date were therefore, not due, as such not released.” Further, “acceptance of post of Welfare Officer has given the monetary benefits higher than what would you got, have you

U

ADI LAXMI Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.25 19:39:42+05'30' F i PDF R d V i remained as SAO.” Further, the proceedings of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure DG branch dt. 26.05.2011 clarifies the point “as per DoPT extant instructions dt. 17.06.2010, an employee appointed on deputation may elect to draw either pay in the scale of pay of deputation or his basic pay in the parent cadre + deputation duty allowance thereon + personal pay, if any”. As observed by the Tribunal, the applicant had opted for the scale of pay of the deputation post. Therefore, the pay fixation calculation as done by the respondents is in order.

26. The applicant in his rejoinder has resubmitted the same facts.

27. Respondents in their additional reply have submitted that due to implementation of the 6th CPC w.e.f 01.01.2006 the date of increment change to 1st July every year. The applicant was appointed to an Ex-cadre post of Welfare Officer on 14.02.2007 and as per the 6th CPC, he needs to complete at least 6 months of service before 1st July 2007 whereas he has completed only 4 and half months. He would have been eligible for increment only on 01.07.2008 but, he retired on 29.02.2008 i.e., before the due date of increment. Thus, the increment could not be released for the period 4.02.2008 to 01.02.2008.

28. Replying to the contention of the applicant that selection within the department to the higher post in Ex-cadre it is treated as promotion as prescribed by the UPSC. The respondents have categorically submitted that the Welfare Officer is an Ex-cadre post which means a post outside the cadre post comprised in the service and in terms of the recruitment rules for the Welfare Officer in IA & AD in the cadre of Sr. AOs / AOs with 5 / 7

U

ADI LAXMI Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.25 19:39:42+05'30' F i PDF R d V i years of / combined service and belonging to the cadre of respective cadre controlling authority will only be eligible for the post of Welfare Officers. This means that the Welfare Officer post is only for the departmental candidates under respective cadre controlling authorities and method of selection to the post is on deputation basis not on promotion. The contention of the applicant is that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 (SLP (C) No.6185/2020 dt.11.04.2023) pertain to the issue of grant of annual increment earned by government servant on the last day of their service is not applicable in the present case of the applicant as he retired on 29.02.2008.

29. With these observations and deliberation as illustrated above, Tribunal finds no merit in the OA being devoid of merit. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(SHALINI MISRA)

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

/al/

U

ADI LAXMI Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.25 19:39:42+05'30' F i PDF R d V i