Even though the rules were “clear” and a clarification was issued by the Central government in favour of 11 IPS officers — belonging to the Punjab cadre — their case was opposed by the state government.

Now taking a serious view of the matter, the Central Administrative Tribunal has imposed a cost of Rs 22,000 on the state and other respondents. The Tribunal has also directed them to “fix the officers’ pay in the scale of Rs 12,000 and Rs 15,500 as on January 1, 1996, in the substantive post of Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs) held by them on that date....”

Allowing the application, the Tribunal has directed the respondents to further “give all consequential benefits, including the arrears of pay arising out of such refixation....”

Paramjit Singh Gill, IPS, and 10 others had earlier claimed that their juniors were drawing more pay than them. As such, they were “entitled to correct fixation of pay”.

Going into the background of the matter, the applicants had contended that they were inducted to the IPS by promotion with effect from July 25, 1995, and were confirmed with effect from the same date next year.

As they continued to maintain lien on their substantive posts in the Punjab Police till the confirmation date, they were entitled to benefits “that accrued in that service”.

Referring to a Punjab government notification regarding the grant of pay revision benefit to the DSPs with effect from January 1, 1996, the applicants had added that they were holding their lien on the DSPs post on that date. As such, they were entitled to re-fixation of pay in the IPS cadre “after taking into consideration pay scale of the substantive post of DSPs”

After hearing the arguments in the case, Tribunal’s Bench, comprising Vice-Chairman L.M. Goyal and Member Jasbir S. Dhaliwal, ruled: “We have no hesitation in concluding that the state of Punjab has taken the plea that the claim of the applications was rejected as per a clarification given by the Government of India. But while going through the communication, we find that it rather supports the applicants’ claim. Thus, the clarification given by the Government of India has been misinterpreted and misapplied for the reasons best known to the authorities....”

The Bench added: “Before parting with the case, we would be failing in our duty if we do not comment upon the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case. First, the rule position was clear. Two, even on state government’s reference to the Government of India, a clarification was given in the applicant’s favour. Yet, their case was opposed. Such exercise of arbitrary powers cannot be said to be bonafide.... Thus, we would be doing justice while saddling the respondents with costs, which we quantify as Rs 22,000, to be paid equally to the applicants”.

The Bench concluded: “The state government would be at liberty to recover the amount from the officers who have been responsible for dealing with the matter and putting the government in unnecessary litigation....”

Besides Mr Gill, the other applicants included, Tehal Singh Dhaliwal, Bhushan Kumar Garg, Roshal Lal Bhagat, Jagdish Kumar, Balbir Kumar Bawa, Parampal Singh, Rajinder Parshad Mittal, Nirmal Singh, Sham Lal and Kawaljit Singh.