AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
The applicants have filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
“(a)Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal
(b)Quash and set aside the Office Memorandum bearing F No.6/37/98-IC dated 21.4.2004 (Annexure A4) issued by respondent No.3 in so far as its date of effect from the date of issue viz., 21.4.2004;
(c)Declare that the date of effect of Office Memorandum bearing F No.6/37/98-IC dated 21.4.2004 (Annexure A4) issued by respondent No.3 shall be from 1.1.1996 notionally and actual benefit from 21.4.2004
(d)Issue a consequential direction to the respondents to fix the pay of the applicants on notional basis from 1.1.1996 and on actual basis from 21.4.2004 and further direct the respondents to draw and disburse the arrears of pay till the date of the retirement of respective applicant and refix all retiral benefits including refixation of pension from the date of retirement forthwith.
(e)Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit to grant to the applicants including an order as to costs of this OA in the interests of justice.”
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the issue involved herein is no longer res-integra, in view of the order passed by this Tribunal in OA Nos.94/2024, 265/2024. 410/2024, 411/2024, 663/2024 and 24/2026, so far as extending the benefits of pay scales from 01.01.1996 notionally and actually from 21.04.2004 as well as the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.32729/2025 - Shri A.Panduranga Naik and others vs. Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block New Delhi and others and connected matters (DD: 22.07.2026), wherein restricting the actual arrears from three years prior to filing of the OAs, passed by this Tribunal, is quashed granting the arrears from 21.04.2004..
Learned Counsel Shri N. Amaresh representing the respondents would submit that the applicants do not fall within the category of eligible persons as defined in OM dated 27.06.2025. Notwithstanding the same, the applicants without submitting representations, are seeking extension of benefits on the ground of alleged parity with the applicants in other OAs involving identical issue. It is further submitted that in view of judicial developments, including the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.2233/2025 (D.K.Srivastava and others vs. Union of India and others), the matter regarding extension of benefits to the similarly situated officers is presently under active consideration of the competent authority.
In OA No.2544/2015 (DD:21.03.2023), Principal Bench of this Tribunal allowing the OA involving identical issue held that the applicants therein, are entitled to the benefit of replacement/upgraded scale of pay on actual basis with effect 01.01.1996 as against 19.02.2003. Further it has been observed as under:
“13.Before parting we would also express a hope that the competent authority shall on its own extend the benefit of upgraded pay scales to all eligible employees with effect from 01.01.1996 irrespective of the fact whether they have approached an appropriate judicial forum for the same or not so that unnecessary litigation is avoided.”
In OA No.2233/2025 dated 31.07.2025, Principal Bench of this Tribunal has again reiterated as under:
“5.The aforesaid Office Memorandum explicitly makes it clear that the respondents have agreed to grant the benefit of notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996, with actual monetary benefit from 21.04.2004, to the applicants herein. However, no formal order has been passed by the respondents with respect to the 13 applicants mentioned hereinabove, who are not members of the Association. It cannot be disputed that the applicants herein have approached this Tribunal and, therefore, the aforementioned benefits ought to be extended to them as well. On the basis of the factual matrix, it is evident that the applicants are similarly placed; hence, no distinction can be drawn between two sets of employees merely on the ground that some are not members of any association or union. It is well settled law that similarly situated persons cannot be discriminated against. It is incumbent upon the respondents to treat the applicants at par with those individuals who have already been extended the said benefit, regardless of their membership in ITGO or any other association. Denial of such benefits would not only be arbitrary but also discriminatory in nature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka vs. C. Lalitha [(2006) 2 SCC 747] and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC 347], has reiterated that in service jurisprudence, all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Merely because one person has approached the Court cannot be a valid ground to deny the same relief to others similarly situated. Justice demands that no individual be allowed to derive undue advantage over others, and that benefits granted by the Court to a specific group must be extended to all identically situated employees. Failure to do so would amount to discrimination and be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
This Bench considering the identical matters in OA Nos.94/2024, 265/2024, 410/2024, 411/2024 and 663/2024, extended the benefits of pay scale from 01.01.1996 notionally and actually from 21.04.2004. However, restricting the actual arrears from three years prior to the filing of the OAs. On further challenge made by the applicants in the above said OAs before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.32729/2025 and allied matters (DD:22.07.2026) cited supra, wherein restricting the actual arrears from three years prior to filing of the OAs passed by this Tribunal, is quashed granting the arrears from 21.04.2004. Following the same, OA No.24/2026 has been disposed of by this Bench vide order dated 24.08.2026.
Hence no discriminatory treatment could be given to the present applicants as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. C. Lalitha [(2006) 2 SCC 747] that in service jurisprudence, all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. In the light of the orders passed by the Principal Bench referred to supra, benefits granted to the specific group must be extended to all identically situated employees. Failure to do so would amount to discrimination and be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of upgraded pay scales to the applicants granted vide OM dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure A4) notionally with effect from 01.01.1996.
The OM dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure A4) issued by the Respondent No.3 insofar as it relates to the effective date of application, is modified. The applicants are entitled to the benefits flowing from OM dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure A4) notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 and actually from 21.04.2004.
The applicants are entitled to the benefit of arrears from 21.04.2004 and consequential benefits in pursuance to the revised pay granted from 21.04.2004 with liberty to the applicants to agitate if the respondents grant such benefit from 01.01.1996 to other similarly situated persons.
Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner, in any event not later than 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
OA stands disposed of in terms of above.
No order as to costs.
sd/- sd/-(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)