AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MA No. 4367/2026 (MA for joining together)
The present MA has been filed by the applicants seeking joining together in a single OA. For the reasons explained therein, the MA is allowed.
OA No. 3417/2026
The present OA has been filed by the applicants seeking the following relif:-
Central Administrative Tribunal“ (i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect the same action of the respondents not extending the benefits of Hon’ble Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in the case of B Udaya Shankara Rao & Ors., versus Union of India, decided on 14.9.2015 in OA No. 296/2014 against which the respondent No. 1 had filed WP 31575 and the same was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court of Hyderabad on 6.11.2018. Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed RP (Civil) 2512/2018 pertaining to similar matter on 23.8.2018 and benefit of judgment dated 14.07.2025 in OA No 41/2025 to the applicants is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently, pass an order directing the
respondents to grant the Non-functional scale of PB-2 Grade Pay of rs. 5400/- and refixation of their pay as per Rule 13 (i) of CCS(RP)Rules, 2008 from the date of completion of 4 years regular service in PB-2 Grade Pay Rs. 4800/-, including financial upgradation in ACP/MACP scheme, with all consequential benefits with arrears of difference of pay and allowances with interest as granted to the similarly situated persons vide order dated 08.10.2024, dated 08.12.2025, dated 11.06.2025, dated 03.07.2025, dated 03.12.2025 and dated 16.03.2026.
(ii)That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the order dated 23.06.2026, 10.03.2026, 06.03.2026 (Colly), 16.07.2026 (Colly), 18.05.2026 (colly), 21.04.2026 (colly), Central Administrative Tribunal28.03.2025, 17.08.2026, 11.06.2026, 12.06.2026, 22.06.2026.
(iii)Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation.”
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the subject matter in the instant case is grant of Grade Pay of 5400 after completion of four years in the Grade Pay of 4800. The respondents have granted the Grade Pay of 4800 from various dates as mentioned in details with respect to all the
applicants in para 4.1 of the OA. However, the applicants approached the respondents to grant Grade Pay of 5400 from the date they have completed four years in Grade Pay of 4800. However, the respondents have replied vide their communication dated 08.08.2024 declining the claim of the applicant. The respondents have implemented the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal CAT, Jaipur passed in OA No. 209/2014 and stated that the similarly placed employees who approached the Court have given Central Administrative Tribunalthe benefits, wherein the case of the applicants they declined to give such benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further refers to OA No. 3106/2026 decided on 17.08.2026, wherein the following has been passed in case of the similarly placed employees:-
“7.In view of the above, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the present OA is disposed of at the admission stage with direction to the respondents to consider/re-consider the representations (Annexure A-1) of the applicants by passing a reasoned and speaking order keeping
in view the aforesaid judgments quoted by the applicant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. We make it emphatically clear that we have not examined or expressed any opinion in respect of merits of the case.”
Issue Notice. Mr. YP Singh, learned counsel, who appears for respondents on advance service, accepts notice. He seeks and is allowed four weeks’ time to file reply.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the subject matter involved in the present OA is similar to that in OA No. Central Administrative Tribunal3106/2026. He prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the present applicants in the same manner as directed in the aforesaid OA.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants is a judgment in personam and not in rem.
Heard both the parties.
We find that the subject matter in the present OA is same as in OA No. 3106/2026. There is no need for prolonging this case further.
Let the respondents consider the claim of the applicants in the present OA, in view of the several judgments equating grant of financial upgradation by way of MACP benefits as qualifying service for grant of next higher grade pay as per (Revised Pay ) Rules 2008.
In view of the above, the present OA is disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for grant of Grade Pay of 5400 after they have completed four years in the Grade Pay of 4800 by way of financial upgradation even if by way of MACP by passing a reasoned and speaking order keeping in view of aforesaid judgment quoted by the applicant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. We make it emphatically clear that we have not examined or
expressed any opinion in respect of the merits of the case.
The OA is disposed of in the above manner. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.