AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
In the instant Original Application, the applicant seeks the following relief(s):-
“(i)That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 21.8.2023 (Annexure A/1), declaring the same illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory. Consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to grant the NonFunctional scale of PB-2+ GP Rs. 5400/- and refixation of the applicant's pay as per Rule 13(i) of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 from the date of completion of 4 years of service in PB-2 + GP Rs.4800/-, including financial upgradation in ACP/MACP scheme, with all consequential benefits, arrears of difference of pay and allowances with effect from 09.09.2013 with interest as granted to other Assistant Managers and Deputy Manager of Mail Motor Services, Mumbai & Kolkata in accordance with the provisions of Clause 1(x) (e) of Ministry of Finance Resolution No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 29.08.2008.
ii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation.”
The present Original Application has been taken up for fresh consideration pursuant to the judgment dated 08.05.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.6279/2026, whereby the earlier order dated 07.04.2025 passed by this Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The relevant portion of the said order of the Hon’ble High Court, reads as under:
“6.The Tribunal has not returned any finding as to why the facts in the present case are identical to those in Ghanshyam Vashisht and has merely chosen to follow the decision treating it as a binding precedent.
7.With consent of learned counsel for the parties, therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the OA stands remanded to the Tribunal for consideration afresh. 8. We make it clear that this order does not return any findings on the merits of the matter.
9.All aspects of fact and law would be open to be urged before the Tribunal.
10.To expedite matters, let the parties appear before the Tribunal on 21 May 2026.
11.Neither side would seek any adjournment on that date.
12.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.”
The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal seeking grant of Non-Functional Scale/Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- upon completion of four years of regular service in Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-.
By order dated 07.04.2025, this Tribunal had allowed the O.A., relying, inter alia, upon the decisions in All India Association of Inspectors and Assistant Superintendents of Posts & Ors. v. Union of India (OA No.506/2021, CAT, Hyderabad) and Ghanshyam Vashisht v. Pensions and Pensioners Welfare (OA No.2436/2022, CAT, Principal Bench).
The Hon’ble High Court, however, noticed that the judgment of the Telangana High Court in W.P. No.43155/2022 had confined the benefit granted in OA No.506/2021 to the applicants therein and had set aside the direction extending the benefit in rem. It was further observed that this Tribunal had not recorded a specific finding as to why the present applicant was factually and legally identically situated with the beneficiaries of the aforesaid decisions. The order of this Tribunal was accordingly set aside and the matter remanded with all questions of fact and law left open.
The gist of the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicant is that the applicant, having completed four years of regular service in Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- under the MACP scheme, is entitled to grant of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- on non-functional basis in terms of Clause 1(x)(e) of the Ministry of Finance Resolution dated 29.08.2008. It is submitted that the benefit has already been extended to similarly situated employees pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 13225/2010 titled M. Subramaniam v. Union of India & ors. and the judgment of the Tribunal in OA No.506/2021, OA No.1907/2021 and other cases, and that the applicant cannot be denied the same merely on the ground of non-membership of the Association. Reliance has further been placed upon the decision in Ghanshyam Vashisht, OA No.644/2026 decided on 20.08.2026 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Sunil Kumar Rai & Ors., Civil Appeal No.4105/2026, decided on 01.04.2026.
We have accordingly reconsidered the matter afresh. The controversy is essentially whether the applicant, a Group-B officer of the Department of Posts who had been placed in Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- and had completed the requisite period of regular service therein, can be denied the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- merely because he was not a member of the All India Association of Inspectors and Assistant Superintendents of Posts as on 22.07.2021.
The answer, in our considered view, has to be in the negative. Clause 1(x)(e) of the Ministry of Finance Resolution dated 29.08.2008 provides for grant of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- on a non-functional basis after four years of regular service in Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in PB-2. The ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 13225/2010 titled M. Subramaniam v. Union of India & ors. also makes it clear that the mere fact that an employee reached Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-through financial upgradation cannot, by itself, disentitle him from the benefit of the higher non-functional grade which cannot be equated to that of promotion.
The decision of the Telangana High Court in W.P. No.43155/2022 did not disapprove the substantive benefit granted in OA No.506/2021; it only set aside the direction extending the benefit to persons not before the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the said judgment, reads as under:
“6……..The Tribunal has specifically allowed the OA in favour of the respondents by observing that similar benefit was extended to several other individuals and the same was denied to the respondents, more so, the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court in WP.No. 31576 of 2016 dated 06.11.2018. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal ought not to have rendered the Judgment in rem when the effected persons were not before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are confining the relief granted only in respect of respondents and that the finding of Tribunal that by awarding relief to the other similarly situated persons in rem is set aside. The rest of the order passed by the Tribunal shall stand confirmed.
Consequently, the applicant’s entitlement has, therefore, to be examined with reference to Clause 1(x)(e) of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure Resolution No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 29.08.2008, and not with reference to his membership of the Association. Once the applicant satisfies the requirement of four years of regular service in Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in PB-2, denial of the benefit solely on the ground that he was not a member of the Association as on 22.07.2021 cannot be sustained.
We are also of the view that the respondents cannot make membership of a particular Association as a condition for extending a service benefit flowing from the applicable Government Resolution. The benefit has to depend upon the employee satisfying the statutory/administrative conditions governing the grant and not upon his membership of an association.
We, therefore, find that the applicant is entitled to be considered at par with the similarly situated Group-B officers who have been granted the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- upon completion of four years in Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-. The impugned order dated 21.08.2023, insofar as it denies the applicant the benefit solely on the ground of his non-membership of the Association as on 22.07.2021, cannot be sustained. Except the aforesaid fact that the applicant is a non-member , the entitlement has not been distinguished in so far as applicant's claim under pay commission recommendations and executive instructions which cannot be said to be inapplicable in present facts of the case.
In Civil Appeal No. of 2026 [@ SLP (C) No. 11595 of 2023], Union of India & Others v. Sunil Kumar Rai & Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“9.6The Writ Petitioners, having completed four years of service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/-, are fully entitled to the benefit of the NFU, Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/-. The Writ Petition was disposed of by directing the Respondents therein to pass the necessary orders granting this upgradation to the Writ Petitioners within four weeks. Hence, the Appeal. The Union of India/BRO argue that the plain reading of Para 7.4.13 (iv) (a & b) does not confer a right for NFU to the Writ Petitioners. The same depends on the entry level, and, admittedly, the entry level for Junior Engineers is Rs. 4,200/-. The denial is legitimate, as evidenced by Paras 7.4.12, 16 and 17 of the Seventh Central Pay Commission Recommendations. We notice that Para 7.4.14 deals with Draughtsman. Therefore, once the Respondents admit that the Writ Petitioners are Junior Engineers, the entitlement to NFU is tested on the applicable recommendation. Sub-Para (iv) reads, and Clause (b) stipulates the criteria for NFU to Level 9 upon completion of four years of service in Level 8 on seniority-cum-suitability basis. The denial of NFU on the ground that the Writ Petitioners have not joined the service with grade pay of Rs. 4,800/-, thus, introducing entry-level into the subject paragraphs of Seventh Central Pay Recommendations, may amount to adding additional conditions for extending the benefit of NFU. ********
We have taken note of the view adopted in the cases referred to in the above paragraphs and the preponderance of consideration of para 7.4.13 (iv) (b) to a substantial extent supports the view in the impugned Judgment.
The requirement appears to be from the plain reading that upon completion of four years of service in Level 8 and on the seniority-cum- suitability, a Junior Engineer is entitled to NFU. The insistence on the option with an entry-level Junior Grade at Rs. 4,800/- would deny a benefit recommended by the Seventh Central Pay Commission to the Writ Petitioners. The view taken in the Special Leave Petition/Orders referred to above is not far from the circumstances of the case on hand. The denial is not for valid reasons. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the Order under appeal. The Civil Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.”
Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.08.2023 is quashed to the extent it denies the applicant the benefit on the aforesaid ground. The respondents are directed to grant the applicant the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-/corresponding Pay Level, from the date he became eligible upon completion of four years of qualifying regular service in Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-, with consequential pay fixation on notional basis and the actual arrears and re-fixation of pay and other consequential benefits are restricted to three years from date of filing the present original application in accordance with rules.
The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.