IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16400 of 2011 Date of Decision: 05.09.2011 Union of India ........Petitioner vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. B.S. Kanwar, Advocate for the petitioner 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. Kumar, J. 1. Order dated 12.1.2011 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity the Tribunal) is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. The Tribunal has held that date of increment by virtue of revision in pay scale can not be changed to the detriment of the employee. In the course of discussion, the Tribunal has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Shyam pada Sidhanta, 1991(1) SCT 513 and it was not disputed before the Tribunal that the case of the original applicant/respondent was covered by the aforesaid judgment in his favour. 2. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, we are not inclined to interfere and to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the C.W.P. No. 16400 of 2011 2 Constitution. Moreover the Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(2) on which reliance has now been placed does not bring any change in the situation. The second proviso of the Rule merely states that employee has to get his next increment on completion of the period when an increment is earned in the time scale of the new post. The aforesaid provision does not contemplate that the date of increment of employee would need to undergo a change on account of revision in the pay scales. First proviso to Fundamental Rule 23 provides that an employee may at his option retain his old pay until the date on which he has earned his next or any subsequent increment in the old scales of pay. It is thus evident that the same controversy was raised before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam pada Sidhanta (supra). Moreover, change in date of increment of an employee even by virtue of pay revision rules has been struck down by this Court in CWP No. 16975 of 2010 decided on 20.7.2011 titled as Ramesh Kumar etc. vs. State of Haryana. 3. We find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) 05.09.2011 JUDGE reena