1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. Thereafter, Pay Commission's Report was announced in January, 1994, revising the pay scales of Officers of the Banks, which was also made effective with effect from 1‑1‑1993. Therefore, the pay of the appellants were again re-fixed in the revised scale of Officers i.e. Rs.2260‑‑175‑‑5760 at the stage, which was lower to the stage of pay already fixed.

4. This fixation created anomaly and the matter was referred to the Finance Division and consequently the pay of the appellants was fixed at the appropriate stages as approved by the Finance Division,

5. Suddenly vide ray slips impugned in the appeals, the respondent No. 2 had reduced the substantive pay of the appellants by adding difference of pay as personal pay with effect from 1‑1‑1993 with further observation for recovery of over payment @ Rs.500 p.m. till final adjustment.

6. Against this impugned pay slips, the appellants filed departmental appeals and having received no response, came to this Tribunal by way or present appeals under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 in pursuance of Amendment Act. 199',

7. Learned counsel Sheikh Riazul Haque, Advocate appeared on behalf pf the appellants and argued the case. For clarification of pay fixation, he also submitted a statement of pay fixation in respect of one of the appellant, i.e. Mr. Ali Haider to prove that his pay was fixed according to the prescribed formula, but later on it was reduced by the respondent Department, which was not justified. He pleaded that the pay of the appellant once fixed arid drawn by him, cannot be reduced to a lower stage. The reduction in pay is a penalty which cannot be imposed without proceeding under the law.

8. From the respondents' side, it has been pleaded that the appellants cannot get double benefit of fixation of their pay. Since Pay Commission's Report was not yet announced, therefore, the pay of the appellants was fixed initially in the old scale of clerical staff by giving them benefit of point to point fixation with effect from 1‑1‑1993 in terms of 7th Wage Commission Award. Accordingly their pay was re‑fixed in old officers scale i.e. Rs.1675‑‑130‑‑3585 under para. 21.2. Chapter XXI of A.D.B.P. Personnel Manual. Then the Pay Commission's report announced the new scales of pay in January, 1994, which were made applicable with effect from 1‑1‑1993. In the light of new pay scales, the appellants pay was re-fixed in the scale of Rs.2210‑‑175‑‑5760 and, thus, they were given the benefit of promotion twice once at the time of pay fixation in term of 7th Wage Award and then in terms of Pay Commission's Report. Since they cannot get double benefit the mistake was later on detected and rectified and their pay was re-fixed after giving them the benefit of new scales. This obviously gave rise to the difference of pay which was adjusted by granting them difference so occurred as personal pay. Therefore, no question of reduction of pay arises therein.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We find that 7th Wage Award was announced and circulated by the Bank vide Circular dated 3‑10‑1993 revising the pay scales of clerical cadre. Admittedly the appellants who were promoted to officer cadre with effect from 1‑1‑1993, their pay on their promotion was fixed in the pay scale of officer cadre at that time i.e. Rs.1675‑‑130‑‑3885, by granting them benefit of increment on promotion. This fixation was made correctly. However, confusion arose later on. Since the appellants were in clerical cadre prior to their promotion, on the announcement of 7th Wage Award which was made effective from 1‑1‑1993, the pay of the appellants were re‑fixed in new scales of clerical cadre i.e. Rs.2010‑‑126‑‑4530 on point to point basis and then in pay scale of officers cadre i.e. 1675‑‑130‑‑3885. Thus, their pay was raised upto the stages fixed in each case. This fixation of pay giving' the benefit of the Wage Award was done erroneously. Since the appellants were promoted to officer cadre prior to the announcement of Wage Award, and their pay were already fixed giving them the benefit of promotion, the Wage Award, which was meant for clerical cadre was not applicable in the case of the appellants, who had already left the clerical cadre and had been promoted to the officer cadre. Subsequently, when the Pay Commission's Report came in January, 1994 was also made effective from 1‑1‑1993. The pay of the appellants were again refixed in the revised pay scale i.e. Rs.2260‑‑175‑‑5760 at the appropriate stages. Since the earlier fixation was made erroneously, therefore, the error was rectified later on and fixation) made correctly by giving the benefit of stages they had already earned.

10. We have examined the re-fixation of pay of appellant Mr. Ali Haider, in the light of new pay scales and found that his pay should be fixed at 9th stage, as such his pay would be Rs.3,

835. And this figure coincides with that fixed by the. Bank. As such, it has correctly been fixed. No injustice has been meted out with him. The similar would be the case of those other appellants.

11. We are sorry to subscribe with the views of the learned counsel for the appellants that the pay of an employee once fixed cannot be reduced subsequently. In our view, if an order is passed by wrong interpretation of law and procedure, that can be corrected at any time by the competent Authority and a wrong order cannot give any vested right to anybody.

12. For the forging reasons, we find no merit in all the abovementioned appeals, as such these are dismissed.

13. No order for costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./226/Sr.F Appeals dismissed.