Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 09 CAT CK 5195

Ramnish Verma vs Union Of India & Ors.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh · Decided on 8 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rashmi Saxena Sahni, Member (A) · Suresh Kumar Batra, Member (J)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
O.A. No. 906/2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 1,283 words

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J):

1.

The applicant has preferred the instant OA seeking quashment of Establishment Order dated 07/2020 dated 29.05.2020 (Annexure A-1), qua applicant (listed at Serial No. 64), for non-grant of non-functional grade (NFG) in the grade pay of Rs. 5400/- with effect from 30.09.2018. A direction has also been sought to the respondents to grant non-functional grade to the applicant from the date he has completed service of four years in the grade pay of Rs. 4800/- in PB-2 (Rs. 7500-12,000/- pre-revised), in terms of law settled vide common order dated 04.11.2015 in OA No. 1044/2014 titled as Manish Kumar and others and OA No. 18/2015 titled as Sanjeev Dhar and others (Annexure A-5) decided on the basis of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of M. Subramanian versus Union of India and others, wherein it has been held that if an officer has completed four years on 01.01.2006 or earlier, he will be given the non-functional upgradation with effect from 01.01.2006, and if the officer completes four years on a date after 01.01.2006, he will be given non-functional upgradation from the date on which he completes four years in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 (pre-revised). It has been pleaded that SLP no. 23153 of 2015 (Civil Appeal) No. 8883 of 2011 stands dismissed vide decision dated 10.10.2017 followed by dismissal of Review Petition No. 2512 of 2018 on 23.08.2018.

2.

The facts as emerged from the records are that the applicant joined service as LDC on 19.11.1986 and was promoted to Steno Grade III on 16.01.1989. The applicant was promoted to the post of Inspector on 07.06.1994 and was granted second MACP with effect from 16.01.2019 in the grade pay of Rs. 4800/- in PB-2 (7500-12000, pre-revised). The applicant was further promoted as Superintendent with effect from 30.09.2014. He was granted NFGP with effect from 29.05.2020 in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-, vide Order No. 7/2020 dated 29.05.2020.

3.

The Government of India, vide resolution dated 29.08.2008, accepted the recommendations of the 6th CPC, with certain modifications, according to which Group B officers were to be granted Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB-2 on a non-functional basis after four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- in PB-2. The Government of India issued circular on 21.11.2008 conveying that 4 years period is to be counted w.e.f. the date on which an officer is placed in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 (pre-revised). Thus, if an officer has completed 4 years on 01.01.2006 or earlier, he will be given NGF w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The CBEC, on the basis of clarification dated 21.11.2008, altered the decision dated 11.02.2009, stipulating that non-functional upgradation to the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-in PB-2 may be given on completion of four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- in PB-2 after regular promotion and not on account of financial upgradation due to ACP. Since the aforesaid clarification dated 11.02.2009 was contrary to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 implementing the recommendations of the 6th CPC, the same was challenged before the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal, vide OA No. 167/2009, titled as M. Subramanian versus Union of India and others, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.04.2010, however vide order dated 06.09.2010 The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 13225 of 2010 reversed the order of this Tribunal. The SLP No. 23513 of 2015 preferred by the Union of India assailing the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras stands dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2017. Thereafter, Review Application No. 2512 of 2018 was also preferred by the UOI, and the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23.08.2018 (Annexure A-4). The similar controversy came for adjudication before this Tribunal in the matter of Munish Kumar and others versus Union of India and others in OA No. 1044/2014, which was allowed by this Tribunal. The said decision of the Tribunal was assailed before the Hon’’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide CWP Nos. 3430 and 3432 of 2017, which came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 11.12.2017 on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.10.2017. The said order passed by this Tribunal dated 04.11.2015 stands implemented by the respondents qua the applicant therein.

4.

The applicant submitted a representation on 13.07.2020 claiming grant of non-functional upgradation w.e.f. 15.01.2013, followed by a reminder, however, in vain. The respondents have decided to extend the benefit only to those persons, who were party to the cases mentioned in the said office orders.

5.

The respondents have filed a reply opposing the claim of the applicant and sought dismissal of the O.A.

6.

We have heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the material available on record.

7.

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the instant O.A. may be disposed of in terms of the decision dated 25.03.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1222/2021. This Tribunal allowed the aforesaid O.A. with the following observations:

“ 10. We have considered the Impugned order dated 07.01.2015 along with Ministry letter dated 16.09.2009. Respondents have rejected claim of the applicant relying upon order dated 16.09.2009 wherein it has been clarified that grant of higher pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2 on non-functional basis is not linked to vacancy and may be given retrospectively w.e.f. 01.1:2006 provided the officer concerned has:-

(i)

completed minimum 4 years of regular service as on 1/1/2006 as Customs Appraiser/Superintendent of Central Excise/Superintendent of Customs(P) Irrespective of the pay scale attached to the post, and

(ii)

is clear from vigilance angle. In this context we have also perused Annexures A-7 and A-8. As per Annexure A-7 dated 25.09.2019 it has been ordered that the decision of this Tribunal dated 04.11.2015 In O.A. No.60/40/2014 filed by Munish Kumar & Ors. and 60/18/2015 filed by Sanjeev Kumar Dhar and Ors. is to be implemented in respect of petitioners in the said OAs. Consequently, as per Establishment order No.70/2019 (Annexure A-8), the order of the Tribunal has been complied with and non-functional grade pay of Rs.5400/- has been granted to the applicants therein the aforesaid OAs

11.

We find this stand of the respondents is discriminatory and inequitable as those similarly situated employees must get similar benefits. Even in terms of judicial pronouncements Msupra, similar benefits must be given to similarly placed employees. Therefore, the respondents are directed to decide the claim of the applicant afresh within a period of two months from the receipt of this order.

12.

O.A. is allowed.”

8.

The learned counsel for the applicant has also placed on record a copy of communication dated 10.01.2025 issued by respondent No. 1 to all the Cadre Controlling Authorities, whereby all the Cadre Controlling Authorities have been requested to implement the court orders, as detailed in the communication, in respect of individual applicants on a personam basis only, provided that these cases are similar to the case covered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court order dated 06.09.2010 in Writ Petition No. 13225 of 2010, titled as M. Subramanian, SLP against which has also been dismissed.

9.

We find no ground to take a dissenting view. In view of the aforesaid, the O.A. is disposed of in terms of the dictum of the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1222 of 2021. The claim of the applicant be decided within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.