K.R. Shaji, S/o.Raghavan vs Union of India & Ors

K.Haripal, Member J

Applicant is a former Skipper in Fishery Survey of India. He had started his service as Bosun in Fishing Harbour, Visakhapatnam on 05.01.1979. He is a Matriculate and also holds certificate of Skipper issued by the Mercantile Marine Department, MMD for short, Ministry of Shipping. Highlighting Annexure-A1 table, it is submitted that by virtue of his holding the certificate issued by the MMD, he was made to hold higher responsibilities as Mate Grade-I and Skipper while holding the substantive post of Bosun, on various spells of service. He states that he had been ordered to work as Mate Grade-I on adhoc basis for 1 year and 9 months (647 days) and as Skipper for 2 years and 4 months (868 days). Thus, as enjoined by FR 26, broken spells of officiation in the higher posts make him eligible and entitled to be counted for advanced increments in the higher posts on fixation of pay on promotion on regular basis. So, he contends that he is eligible and entitled for promotion on his pay with increments in the higher posts for the period he occupied higher responsibilities based on the provisions in FR 22(1). Even though he made numerous representations, none was considered. He has highlighted Annexure-A6 communication issued by the Senior Administrative Officer addressed to the 3rd respondent recommending to grant him increments as requested as per the then Rules in force as done in the case of one Sri.V.J.Joseph, Ex-Skipper. He also placed reliance on Annexure-A8 O.M. dated 12.12.2013, clarification issued by DoPT which enables the invocation of FR 26 for counting broken spells of officiation in higher posts for increment.

Earlier, since his representations were not considered, he moved this Tribunal with O.A.542/2020, which was disposed of on 17.11.2020 at the admission stage itself, directing the respondents to consider the representations and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three moths. However, the respondents have rejected the claims through Annexures-A10 and A11. Thus he seeks to set aside Annexures-A10 and A11 and a declaration that he is eligible and entitled for increments for the period worked on adhoc/temporary basis as Mate Grade-I and Skipper as per FR 26 on the lines of the benefits granted to Sri.C.A.Gopi and Sri.V.J.Joseph in identical situations and to direct the respondents to grant and reckon additional increments for the period he had worked on adhoc/temporary basis.

According to the applicant, his claim has been considered erroneously and was rejected without due application of mind. The contention that he had held higher duties and responsibilities as Mate Grade-I and Skipper is not disputed. But the 4th respondent has issued Annexure-A11 misquoting FR26 as if the applicant “while officiating in a post or holding a temporary post on time scale of pay is appointed to officiate in a higher post or to hold a higher temporary post, his officiating or temporary service in the higher post shall, if he is re-appointed to the lower post, or is appointed or re- appointed to a post on the same time scale of pay, count for increments in the time scale applicable to such lower post." It is perverse and opposed to facts and ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C)No.34378/2003 dated 29.11.2003. According to him, the respondents have failed to appreciate FR 26 and FR 35 in its correct perspective.

According to the applicant, the contention in Annexure-A11 that he was assigned duties of Mate and Skipper against leave vacancy/adhoc basis as ephemeral arrangement to meet the immediate requirement of the orgnisation is absurd and opposed to facts and truth. While the said Joseph and Gopi were granted benefits he has been denied the benefit, thus he has been discriminated against.

On behalf of the respondents, the 3rd respondent filed a reply disputing the claims of the applicant. The applicant was appointed as Bosun (Certified) on 05.01.1979 in the pay scale of Rs.550-750 at Visakhapatnam. While so, since he possessed certificate of Skipper, was appointed to officiate as Mate Grade-I and Skipper on adhoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.840-1200 and Rs.1100-1600 respectively for short spells, on various occasions. During the temporary postings, his pay was fixed to the minimum of pay scales of relevant posts. That means, while so, he was granted the pay of the post he was officiated to work with higher responsibilities as applicable in accordance with proviso (1) (i) to FR 22(1). In accordance with the proviso, the period of broken spells is the period of promotion granted to the applicant purely on adhoc basis. Such period does not qualify for increment in the higher post. From the Annexure-A2 series documents produced by the applicant, it is clear that appointments were made purely on adhoc basis against short term vacancies, which do not confer on him any claim for regular appointment, promotion, seniority etc. Since such promotions for short spells were purely on adhoc basis for stop gap periods, the additional increments claimed by him is at farce to be bestowed.

Regarding the contention based on WP(C) No.34378/2003 it is submitted that regular promotion to the post of Skipper was fixed to Sri.C.A.Gopi counting the previous adhoc service rendered by him in the post of Skipper on short spells. Similarly, in the case of Sri.V.J.Joseph, the increments for adhoc service were taken into account for calculation of increments during regular promotion. In view of the conditions applicable for granting adhoc promotion and in accordance with proviso 1(i) to FR 22(I) counting of stop gap intermittent adhoc promotion towards regular increment on subsequent regular promotion is absolutely erroneous and is liable to be scrutinised by the audit party during audit inspection. The inappropriate fixation of pay of both Gopi and Joseph needs the earlier decision reversed. The pay of Gopi and Joseph and the applicant while officiating on adhoc promotion for the stop gap period was fixed to higher scale in the officiating post. While officiating the higher post of Mate Grade-I, the pay of the applicant was fixed at Rs.840-1200 and in the post of Skipper at Rs.1100-1600 on different occasions purely on adhoc basis 'though substantiated as Bosun (C) in the feeder post'. The pay scales of the post of Mate Grade-I and Skipper stood revised in accordance with the revision in CPCs.

According to the respondents, the Fundamental Rules or Service Rules or the orders issued by the Department of Personnel and Training from time to time do not convey provision to evoke the grant of multiple increments in promotion post by counting all adhoc periods previously held in the same post or it is regularisation. 'Annexure-A8 O.M. miss to mark a dimension amid the counting of multiple increments for previously held adhoc service in the same post and Rule 10 of the CCS(RP) Rules 2008 as claimed by the applicant'.

Quoting the proviso 1(i) to FR 22(I) they said that the initial pay fixed in the post should not be less than the pay which he drew on the last occasion and he shall count the period during which he drew that pay on a regular basis. As per the records held by the respondents, the applicant had not rendered any regular service in the said posts which enables him to draw additional increments consequent to regular promotion to the posts. The impugned orders were passed after considering all the relevant aspects. The applicant had not rendered regular service in the same post and therefore, broken spells of intermittent periods served under the Service Rules is beyond the applicability of parameters provided in FR 22(I) proviso 1(i). The applicant had officiated previously on adhoc basis as Skipper on possessing Skipper certificate and accordingly, his pay for the said period was fixed at higher pay scale. Decision granting additional increments to Joseph and Gopi for the adhoc service does not support the Fundamental Rules or orders of the nodal authority. Thus the O.A. is sought to be dismissed.

The applicant filed a rejoinder reiterating that he is entitled to get increments for the broken spells acted as Mate Grade-I and Skipper.

We heard Sri.P.K.Madhusoodanan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents.

The respondents have not denied the fact that the applicant had officiated as Mate Grade-I and Skipper on various periods while holding the substantive post of Bosun. He was granted promotion under FR 26. It is claimed that he had worked for 2 years and 4 months as Skipper and Mate Grade-I while holding substantive post of Bosun. Similarly, he had worked for 1 year and 9 months as Mate while working as Bosun. According to him, holding of such higher responsibilities entitles him to get advance increments in the higher post. Though he made repeated representations, that were not considered and that prompted him to approach this Tribunal with O.A.542/2020. However, Annexures-A10 and A11 have been issued without considering the entitlement of the applicant. Both the impugned orders were passed without application of mind. Producing a copy of judgment in OP(CAT)55/2020 he said that the order of this Tribunal in O.A.709/2015 on identical facts stands confirmed by the High Court. Therefore, reason stated in Annexure-A10 as though OP(CAT) 55/2020 is pending consideration of the High Court has no basis. That has since been dismissed in favour of the applicant in O.A.709/2015.

According to the applicant, from Annexure-A8 clarification itself, it is clear that the applicant is entitled to get such a relief. When queries were raised regarding the delay, learned counsel submitted that in the light of Annexure-A6 communication dated 14.02.2020 any argument of bar under limitation will not survive for consideration. According to him, the claim of the applicant is based on FR 26, whereas there was no such case in O.A.798/2019, decided on identical facts. So, based on the order of this Tribunal in O.A.709/2015, which stands confirmed in OP(CAT) 55/2020, the applicant is entitled to get relief. According to the learned counsel, his case was never taken under FR 35. Referring to Annexure-A6 it is submitted that the 2nd respondent was also convinced of the eligibility of the applicant.

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel has argued that it is a claim completely barred by limitation. Relying on the decision in C.Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another [2008 (10) SCC 115] and Union of India and others v. M.K.Sarkar [2010 (2) SCC 59] he said that a case cannot be build up on the basis of a belated representation in respect of a stale claim. He also placed reliance on an order passed by this Bench in O.A.798/2019 dated 04.12.2025 on identical facts. Learned counsel also relied on the decision in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & A.H.T.S. Association and another [AIR 2000 SC 3020].

The applicant was appointed as Bosun in the FSI on 05.01.1979. He possesses general education qualification of SSLC and was also holding a certificate of Skipper issued by the MMD under the Ministry of Shipping, in 1979. Such a certificate, it seems, kept him on a vantage position. While working as Bosun (C), he was granted temporary promotions on adhoc basis against short term vacancies of Mate Grade-I and Skipper, as the case may be, on various occasions as shown through Annexure-A2 series. There is no serious dispute on this aspect. Even though when these claims are compared with Annexure-R2 series produced by the respondents, there is general agreement by the respondents that the applicant had held higher responsibilities as Mate Grade-I and Skipper while holding the substantive post of Bosun (C).

The applicant was promoted as Mate Grade-I on 05.06.1997 and as Skipper on 16.06.2005. It appears that those were the substantive promotions granted to him. Similarly, it is submitted that he took voluntary retirement on 01.05.2010. The applicant is aggrieved by non-granting of increments during the broken spells of adhoc promotions granted to him on various dates as claimed by him. According to him, as provided under FR 26 he is entitled to get increments in the higher pay at the time of fixing the pay on regular promotion to the higher post.

Even though the learned Standing Counsel has raised forceful arguments challenging the very maintainability of the O.A. and submitted that it is badly barred by limitation, such a plea has not been raised in the reply. However, it being a question of law, despite the absence of such a plea, we are bound to consider the same.

As mentioned earlier, he had taken voluntary retirement on 01.05.2010. The plea sounds that he had taken such a step in protest against non-granting of increments in higher posts despite he had held higher assignments on multiple times. But, there is absolutely no material to say that he had made any representation or plea claiming such a relief prior to Annexure-A5, which was submitted on 30.09.2019. To put it in other words, such a claim was raised for the first time long after demitting office on voluntary retirement on 01.05.2010. He was substantially promoted as Mate Grade-I on 05.06.1997 and Skipper on 16.06.2005. Neither on these occasions or before making Annexure-A5 representation he had not moved his little finger staking such a claim. After filing Annexures-A5 and A7 he approached this Tribunal with O.A.542/2020 complaining that his representations were not considered by the respondents. That was how Annexure-A9 order was issued, which paved way for the issuance of the impugned orders, Annexures-A10 and A11.

What we venture to say is that the cause of action for grant of advance increments had arisen either on 05.06.1997 when he was promoted as Mate Grade-I or on 16.06.2005 on the date he was promoted as Skipper. After long lapses of time he made a representation only in 2019, which does not stand to rhyme or reason.

It may be true that, the claim might have been recommended by the Senior Administrative Officer as seen in Annexure-A6. But that will not give a foot hold to the applicant to clear the contentions regarding bar under limitation. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, a belated representation or an order by this Tribunal to consider and dispose of that representation will not revive a cause of action which had occurred way back in June 1997 and June 2005. We do not have slightest doubt in our mind that the applicant has approached this Tribunal with a claim, which is hopelessly barred by limitation. On that score itself, the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.

Turning to the merits also, we are not convinced that the applicant is entitled to succeed. Even though we do not find a proviso to FR 22(I) as quoted in page 4 of the reply statement, what is important is grant of increment to broken spells of service rendered by him while holding higher responsibilities of Mate Grade-I and Skipper. In this connection, clause c(i) under the proviso to FR 26 reads thus:

“(c) (i) If a Government servant, while officiating in a post of holding a temporary post on a time-scale of pay, is appointed to officiate in a higher post or to hold a higher temporary post, his officiating or temporary service in the higher post shall, if he is reappointed to the lower post, or is appointed or reappointed to a post on the same time- scale of pay, count for increments in the time-scale applicable to such lower post. The period of officiating service in the higher post which counts for increment in the lower post is, however, restricted to the period during which the Government servant would have officiated in the lower post but for his appointment to the higher post. This clause applies also to a Government servant who is not actually officiating in the lower post at the time of his appointment to the higher post, but who would have so officiated in such lower post or in a post on the same time-scale of pay had he not been appointed to the higher post.”

The respondents have held that in terms of the proviso the applicant has been paid scale of pay of higher post for short periods. However, additional increments were granted in the substantive post of Bosun held by him. Such a course is clearly in terms of the Rule quoted supra.

It appears that the claim of Sri.T.A.Sajive in O.A.709/2015 was not on identical lines. On the other hand, strictly on these facts we had occasion to consider the claim of Joseph, a retired Skipper and by which order in O.A.798/2019 such a claim was rejected.

Various spells of service claimed by the applicant, some of which tally with the Annexure-R2, do suggest that the applicant had held higher responsibilities as Mate Grade-I and Skipper while holding the substantive post of Bosun. But, it had been for short spells ranging from 10 days to 100 days at a stretch. It never extended beyond 100 days. It is not known as to how such a temporary arrangement would enable the applicant to inure advance increment in the higher post. In the decision in Haryana Veterinary & A.H.T.S. Association, quoted supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that service rendered by an adhoc appointee cannot be held to be in regular service and cannot be tagged on service rendered by him after regular appointment.

On an evaluation of the entire facts and circumstances, the Original Application is dismissed. No costs.

(Dated, this the 1st day of April, 2026)