B V Sudershan Babu vs INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH on 8 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)

By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief(s): “… to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the Office Order dated: 21-10-2024 in No. ICMR-NIN/Estt-I/Pay Re-fix/2024-25/539 by the 3rd respondent is highly arbitrary, illegal and violative principles of natural justice and thus set the same aside and consequently direct the respondents to continue the pay scale of the applicant as fixed in the Office Order dated: 15-10-2019 in No. NIN/Pers/Refix/2019-20/601 and not to reduce the pay of the applicant and pass such other and further order or orders as are deemed fit and in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was initially engaged as NMR in the 3rd respondent Institute, was subsequently granted Temporary Status, and his services were regularized w.e.f. 23.11.2006. Under the Merit Based Assessment Promotion Scheme (MBAPS), he was promoted as Lab Attendant (Level-2) w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and, thereafter, as Lab Assistant (Level-5) w.e.f. 01.04.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that certain employees junior to the applicant, namely, Sri E. Kondal Reddy, Sri K. Venkatesh and Sri P. Dasrath, were drawing higher pay despite their subsequent regularization and promotion. Upon the applicant’ representation, the respondents, vide Office Order dt. 15.10.2019, stepped up his pay on par with his juniors, thereby rectifying the pay anomaly. However, vide impugned Office Order dt. 21.10.2024, the respondents have re-fixed the applicant's pay retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.2016, reducing it from Rs.30,200/- to Rs.29,300/- and, as on 01.01.2024, from Rs.40,400/- to Rs.39,200/-, with a further proposal to recover the alleged excess payment. It is contended that the respondents have re-fixed the applicant’s pay and proposed recovery without issuing a prior show-notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing. Hence, the present OA is filed.

Location:

KUDARU

3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, pursuant to the applicant’s representation dt. 20.02.2019 seeking stepping up of his basic pay on par with his juniors, his case was considered in terms of Rule 7(10)(i) of the 7th CPC Notification dt. 25.07.2016 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, and his pay was accordingly re-fixed, vide order dt. 11.10.2019. Learned counsel further submits that, in the case of another employee, Sri A. Shanker, whose pay had similarly been revised and who retired on 30.04.2024, the 2nd respondent, vide letter dt. 24.01.2023, clarified that there was no provision for stepping up of pay under the Merit Based Assessment Scheme/IRASs Rules, 2017, and that such benefit was applicable only in cases of vacancy-based promotions, in terms of the DoPT Order dated 26.10.2018. Consequently, the pay of the said employee was re-fixed, by reducing the pay, vide Order dt. 08.05.2023. Thereafter, Shri A. Shankar submitted a representation dt. 26.08.2024, stating that the pay of his colleagues, who had also been granted the benefit of stepping up of pay pursuant to the ICMR Order dt. 24.01.2023, had not been similarly re-fixed. The said colleagues included M. Venkataiah, G. Yadagiri, D. Madhava Reddy, P. Ravindar, I. Poshetty, N. Bhaskar, M. Narasing Rao, A. Jangaiah and also the applicant herein. Accordingly, the pay of the Laboratory Assistants, including the applicant, who had been granted the benefit of stepping up of pay, was reviewed and re-fixed. Consequent orders in this regard were issued, vide Office Order dt. 21.10.2024.

4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings and material available on record.

5. We find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the respondents could not have re-fixed the applicant’s pay and initiated recovery of the alleged excess payment, without issuing a show-cause notice

Location:

KUDARU

and affording him an opportunity to explain his position. It is well settled that an order adversely affecting an employee’s pay and resulting in recovery, if any, must be passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Revising the pay of an employee to his disadvantage without prior notice and an opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained.

6. We also refer to Rule 7(10)(i) of the CCS(Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 which reads as under: “(10) (i) In cases where a senior Government servant promoted to a higher post before the 1st day of January, 2016 draws less pay in the revised pay structure than his junior who is promoted to the higher post on or after the 1st day of January, 2016, the pay of senior Government servant in the revised pay structure shall be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay as fixed for his junior in that higher post and such stepping up shall be done with effect from the date of promotion of the junior Government servant subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions, namely:- (a) both the junior and the senior Government servants belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted are identical in the same cadre; (b) the existing pay structure and the revised pay structure of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay are identical;

(c) the senior Government servants at the time of promotion are drawing equal or more pay than the junior, (d) the anomaly is directly as a result of the application of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22 or any other rule or order regulating pay fixation on such promotion in the revised pay structure: Provided that if the junior officer was drawing more pay in the existing pay structure than the senior by virtue of any advance increments granted to him, the provisions of this sub-rule shall not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer.

(ii) The order relating to re-fixation of the pay of the senior officer in accordance with clause (i) shall be issued under Fundamental Rule 27 and the senior officer shall be entitled to the next increment on completion of his required qualifying service with effect from the date of re-fixation of pay.”

7. In view of the foregoing, the impugned Office Order dt. 21.10.2024, having been issued without a prior show-cause notice, cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue

Location:

KUDARU

show-cause notice to the applicant within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The applicant is at liberty to submit his representation, along with supporting documents and relevant judicial precedents, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the show-cause notice. Thereafter, the Competent Authority shall consider the representation, afford the applicant an opportunity of personal hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with rules and law. Until the matter is finally decided by the Competent Authority, no recovery shall be effected from the applicant pursuant to the impugned order, particularly in view of the submission made on behalf of the respondents that no recovery has been effected till date. It is also made clear that this Tribunal has not gone into the merits of the case.

8. With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

/Ram/

Location:

KUDARU