AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Per. Hon’ble Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Member (A)
The present Original Application has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i)Direct the respondents to extend and implement in favour of the applicant, the benefit of judgement of M. Subramaniam (ANNEXURE A/4 & A/5) and judgement & order passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 236/2022, 495/2022, 239/2022, 1020/2022 & 390/2023 (ANNEXURE A/14), on the same terms and conditions as has already been extended to other similarly situated employees vide order dated 03/09/2025 (ANNEXURE A/1);
(i)Direct the respondents to grant pay fixation in the Non-Functional Senior Grade, i.e. Pay Band 2 Rs.9300-34,800/-+ Grade pay of Rs. 5400/- after completion of 4 years' service by the applicants in pay band of Rs.9300-34,800 pay band Rs.4800/- with consequential benefits of revised pay fixation, pension, fixation, family pension fixation, arrears of pay, arrears of pension, arrears of family pension and other retiral benefits with 18% interest, within 3 months in the interests of justice;
(ii)Grant any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant”
Learned counsel for the applicant invited our attention to various subsequent judgements of various Benches of the Tribunal, including the order passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.3768/2018 wherein the Tribunal had held in para 17 as under:
‘17. We also notice that the respondents are ignoring the fact that apart from this Bench, other Benches of the Tribunal have repeatedly directed compliance of the said judgment of M. Subramaniam (supra) holding that the judgment is to be
complied in rem and not to be treated as in personam. We, therefore, hold that the said judgment is not in personam and benefit of the same is required to be extended to all similarly situated persons including the applicants before us, to avoid needless litigation in future.’
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that despite representation dated 10.08.2026 followed by another one dated 11.08.2026, the respondents have not extended the benefit of the judgement in the M. Subramaniam v. Union of India & Ors. { W.P.(C) No.13225/2010} in his case and thus the present OA.
Issue Notice. Shri Bhaskar D. Pandit accept notice.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and without going into the merits of the case , at this stage itself, the present OA is disposed of with a direction to the competent authorities amongst the respondents to consider the claim/representation of the applicant in terms of the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of M. Subramaniam(supra) and if the applicant is found similarly placed as that the case of M. Subramaniam(supra), the respondents shall extended the benefit, as admissible, in view of the judgement in M. Subramaniam(supra), as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 6 weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the OA.
OA is disposed of. No order as to costs.