AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member
Applicants in R.A.27/2025 are the Original Applicants in O.A.187/2021. Applicants in R.A.10/2026 and R.A.13/2026 are the respondents 2 and 3 in the respective Original Applications. Applicants in R.A.11/2026 are the respondents 3 and 4 in O.A.187/2021. Applicant in R.A.39/2026 is the Original Applicant in O.A.16/2019.
By order dated 25.09.2025, this Tribunal had passed a common order disposing the Original Applications issuing directions for regulating the pay of the Original Applicants in the Junior Administrative Grade scale, granting them pay protection.
The applicants in O.A.187/2021 submit that they were largely peeved by the delay in convening the selection committee meeting and the hostile discrimination meted out to them. Relying on the decision reported in Union of India and others v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah [AIR 1996 SC 1259] the learned counsel has submitted that the positive directions and the time line in the Regulation were not followed in their case. The delay aspect has not been met by the respondents in the reply. Similarly, citing the instance of Sri.A.R.Ajayakumar who was appointed in IAS cadre by promotion they were very much aggrieved by the discrimination meted out to them. According to the learned counsel, even though elevation of the applicants was due in 2013 and 2014, proposal was sent only on 31.12.2015, for which no justification has been offered. The grievances of the applicants were not considered by the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel, now they are suffering substantial loss in monthly pension. Grant of JAG was not an issue for them.
The learned Senior Government Pleader has filed objection to the R.A.s and brought our attention to R.A.Nos.10,11 and 13 of 2026 filed by the State and the Accountant General against the order.
The grievance of the State and AG is that as per the provisions of the Rules, Regulation governing IFS Officers, the applicants had not completed nine years from the year of allotment, hence they are not entitled to get the benefit of Junior Administrative Grade. They had completed only six years service from the year of of allotment. Therefore, the Original Applicants are entitled to get only Senior Time Scale.
According to the applicant in RA 39/2026, he has been granted year of allotment wrongly, that the benefit accrued by him in the State Pay Revision in 2014 was ignored while officers inducted prior to 2016 were given the benefit of the pay revision. He has also highlighted the case of Sri.A.R.Ajayakumar.
We have heard Sri.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants in R.A.27/2025 and Sri.M.M.Salim, learned Senior Government Pleader for R.A.Nos.10, 11 and 13 of 2026. We also heard Sri.Sinu G Nath, learned Senior Panel Counsel and Sri.P.V.Mohanan, learned counsel for the applicant in R.A.39/2026.
After hearing learned counsel on both sides, we are convinced that certain vital aspects urged by the parties have omitted ourattention inadvertently. 'Actus curiae neminem gravabit' is a well known Maxim in our jurisprudence meaning 'an act of the Court shall prejudice no man'. The mistake or omission on the part of the Court or Tribunal should not cause prejudice to the litigating parties. These are sufficient reasons to review the order under challenge.
The applicants in O.A.187/2021 and the applicant in O.A.16/2019 as well as the State and Accountant General, who are the common respondents, have filed Review Applications. The learned counsel for the applicants in O.A.Nos.14 and 16 of 2019 have supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants in O.A.187/2021 and O.A.16/2019. In the circumstances, we review and recall the order dated 25.09.2025.
These Original Applications will be posted for further hearing on 04.11.2026.