AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Delivered by Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Heard Shri M. K. Upadhyay assisted by Shri Sachin Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents and with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the instant original application is being disposed of at this stage itself.
The instant Original Application, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has been filed by the applicant seeking following reliefs:
“(i)This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to hold and declare that the applicant is entitled to be placed and his pay be fixed in the Non-Functional Grade (NFG) Pay Scale of Rs. 9300-34800 in Pay Band-II, with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-, with all consequential benefits, with effect from 04.06.2015 in place of 09.06.2023 the date he has completed four years of service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/-(or equivalent pay scale)
(ii)This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to issue a time bound order or direction to the respondents to release the entire arrears of salary and other emoluments payable to the applicant w.e.f 04.06.2015 to 09.06.2023 as a consequence of the aforesaid grant of the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/ to them from the due date, along with interest at such rates as might be found just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii)Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
(iv)Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”
The brief facts, as narrated by the applicant, are that the applicant was posted on the post of Junior Works Manager in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- on 04.06.2011 and finally superannuated from service on 30.09.2024. Under the recommendations of the 6th CPC, the erstwhile Annual Career Progression Scheme (ACP) of granting two financial upgradations in the 12th and 24th years of service were replaced by the Modified Career Progression Scheme (MACP) wherein the employees became entitled to receive three financial upgradations in the 10th, 20th and 30th years of their service.
The Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) dated 29.08.2008, forming part of Central Revised Pay Rules, 2008, by which Group B officers of Department of Posts, Revenue etc. will be granted Grade Pay of Rs.5400/ in PB-II on non-functional basis after four years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs.4800/- in PB-II.
One Sri M. Subramaniam approached before Hon'ble Madras High Court by means of Writ Petition No. 13225/2010, м Subramaniam vs Union of India, wherein vide order dated 06.09.2010 in the Hon'ble High Court Madras directed the respondents to extend the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs 5400/- to the petitioner w.e.f. the date he had completed four years of regular service in the pre-revised scale of 7500-12,000 (corresponding to Grade Pay of Rs 4800), as per Resolution dated 29.08.2008 of the Finance Department.
The Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court filed by Union of India against the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Madras High Court, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 10.10.2017 and a Review Petition thereupon was also dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2018.
The applicant completed four years of regular service in the same grade pay of Rs.4800/- in the year 2015 itself, but he was not granted the benefit of Non-Functional Grade (hereinafter referred as ‘NFG’) in the grade pay of Rs.5400/- on completion of four years of regular service in Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-. However, as per the applicant, he was granted the benefits of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- on 09.06.2023. The applicant has filed representations before the respondents on 06.12.2023 as well as 21.07.2026 (appended as Annexure-6 and A-8 to the Original Application respectively) requesting therein to grant the benefit of Non-Functional Grade in grade of Rs.5400/- with all consequential benefits w.e.f 04.06.2015 in place of 09.06.2023, but no heed was paid. Hence, this original application has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that now the issue in involved this Original Application regarding for grant of Non-Functional Grade (NFG) Pay Scale of Rs.9300-34800/- in Pay Band-II with grade of Rs.5400 w.e.f the dates that they had completed four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-, is set at rest by the Madras High Court in case ofM. Subramaniam Vs. Union of India, which has been upheld by the Apex Court and as such, this Original Application may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Madras High Court as well as order dated 09.01.2020 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.1005/2019 (Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.). He further submits that similar orders have been passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 595/2024 and OA No. 244/2025 which have also been implemented by the respondents vide their orders dated 09.04.2026 and 10.04.2026 respectively (the implementation orders have been appended on page 114 as 115 respectively).
Per contra, Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue involved in this O.A. has already been decided by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1005/2019, decided on 09.01.2020 as well as High Court of Madras in W.P. No.13225/2010, decided on 06.09.2010, which was affirmed by the Apex Court.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the records have been gone through.
It is apparent that the issue involved in this Original Application regarding grant of Non-Functional Grade (NFG) Pay Scale of Rs.9300-34800/- in Pay Band-II with grade of Rs.5400 w.e.f the dates that they had completed four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- is set at rest by the Madras High Court in case of M. Subramaniam Vs. Union of India, which has been upheld by the Apex Court.
Further, apart from this Bench, other Benches of this Tribunal have repeatedly directed compliance of the said judgement of M. Subramaniam (supra) by holding that the judgements are to be complied in rem and not to be treated as in personam. Hence, it would be in fitness of things if the respondents in the present OA also consider the case of the applicant and meet out the same treatment as has been given to their other counter parts all over India through judgments of the various benches of this Tribunal in light of M. Subramaniam (supra). It would be pertinent to note that pay fixation matters, like the one under consideration are governed by uniform policies of the Government and so any judgments on these matters by their very nature are always judgments in rem and cannot be interpreted as judgments in personam by the complying authority.
Further, similar observations have also been made by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Original Application No.714/2020 vide its order dated 03.12.2020. Relevant para of the said order is quoted as under for ready reference:
“10.It is quite outrageous that the respondents are ignoring the fact that apart from this Bench, other Benches of this Tribunal have repeatedly directed compliance of the said judgement of M. Subramaniam (supra) by holding that the judgements are to be complied in rem and not to be treated as in personam. Hence, it would be in fitness of things if the respondents in the present OA also consider the case of the applicants and meet out the same treatment as has been given to their other counter parts all over India through judgements of the various Tribunal benches in light of M. Subramaniam (supra). It would be pertinent to note that pay fixation matters, like the one under consideration are governed by uniform policies of the Government and so any judgments on these matters by their very nature are always judgments in rem and cannot be interpreted as judgments in personam by the complying authority.
11.The respondents are accordingly directed to ensure that the benefit of the judgment referred in the judgment passed by thisTribunal on 09.01.2020 in O.A. No. 1005/2019 Pradeep Kumar and others V. Union of India others, be also given to all the persons in this OA as they are entitled to the same whether they are retired or in service. This exercise is to be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. xx xxxx
13.A copy of this order be also served on the Union Finance Secretary by the Registry to consider issuing directions on identical matters such as above for in rem consideration and not in personam. This would avoid needless litigation in the future.
Accordingly, in view of aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the respondents are directed to ensure that the benefit of the judgment referred in the judgment passed by this Tribunal on 09.01.2020 in O.A. No. 1005/2019 Pradeep Kumar and others vs Union of India & others be also given to the applicant as he is entitled to the same. This exercise is to be completed within aperiod of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Resultantly, instant O.A. stands disposed of.
All pending MAs in this O.A are also stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.