1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant K. Gopinathan was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He was taken on deputation in the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI) on 1.2.65. On such deputation he was paid his pay pertaining to the post of his parent office, as modified from time to time. Besides, he was also paid deputation duty allowance. On 1.2.83, he was permanently absorbed and his pay was re-fixed.
3. It requires to be stated at this stage that on such absorption his basic pay was reduced from Rs.510/- to Rs.390/-. Therefore, he submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. pointing out the loss caused to him by an incorrect fixation. In this regard he made repeated representations and ultimately on 13th September, 1990 the appellant 'was informed that his pay fixation had been correctly done.
4. Aggrieved by that order, he moved Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by way of Original Application No.967/1990. Before the Tribunal it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the basic pay on account of the absorption should not be reduced. Therefore, merely because the overall pay is more, that does not mean there could be a reduction of the basic pay. He relied on the decision of the Bangalore and the New Delhi Tribunals for advancing this plea. However, the Tribunal rejected the same. Hence, Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned counsel for the appellant commends the acceptance of the view of the Bangalore Bench as well as the Delhi Bench which found favour with this Court in S.L.P.(C) No.2196/92 while the respondents would submit that the reasoning in the impugned judgment is correct.
5. By means of the following tabulated statement we will point out the position of the appellant's pay as a deputationist and as absorbed in C.B.I.
As a deputationist As an absorbed on the date of in CBI absorption Basic pay Rs.510/- Rs.390/- Spl. Pay Rs.30/- Rs.30/- Deputation allowance Rs.80/- -- Personal Pay -- Rs.85/- Dearness Pay -- Rs.214/70 DA/ADA Rs.279/- Rs.304/- Total: Rs.899/- Rs.1023/70
6. Two things are striking: i) His basic pay has been reduced from Rs.510/- to Rs.390/-. ii) However the overall pay as a deputationist on the date of absorption was Rs.899/- while after absorption in C.B.I. it is Rs.1023.70/-
7. On these facts the Tribunal comes to the conclusion as follows:-
In fact on the date of absorption, the Dearness Allowance available under the Tamil Nadu Government Pay Scales was only Rs.279 for the applicant, whereas the amount of DA available to him under the Central Scales was Rs.518. It is also to be noted that out of Rs.518, an amount of Rs.214.70 has been merged with the pay. When the dearness pay of Rs.214.70 is added to the basic pay of Rs.390.00, we get the amount of Rs.604, which is higher than the basic pay of Govt. servant under the Tamil Nadu Government, attached to the post. We, therefore, hold that there has not been any reduction in the applicant's basic pay in substance, even though that basic pay consisted of twelve month. Taking into account the fact that the Tamil Nadu Government scales were revised on 1.4.1978 and that of the Central Government on 1.1.1973, we are of the view that both the scales are not comparable. When a person is being governed by the Tamil Nadu Government pay scales while he was on deputation and therefore as on 1.2.1983, is absorbed central scales of pay, the definition in basic pay of the applicant is bound to occur. We also notice that even though the basic pay of the applicant rose to Rs.604 from Rs.510/- by virtue of the addition of the dearness pay of Rs.214.70 with the existing basic pay of Rs.390.00. Therefore, this is a case in which there has not been any real reduction in the basic pay of the applicant.
8. We are afraid we cannot subscribe to this reasoning. While upholding the view of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No. 1680/89 in S.L.P.(C) No.2196/92, we have pointed out how the basic pay cannot be reduced. The same principle will be applicable to this case as well. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.