Shiwajee Pandey vs The Union Of India & Ors.

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- w.e.f. the date of completion of four years of regular service in Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/-.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant joined as Examiner on 16.11.1995 and was subsequently granted the benefit of MACP in Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- and thereafter Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- on completion of 20 years of regular service on 16.11.2015. He submits that the applicant completed four years of regular service in Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- on 16.11.2019 and was, therefore, entitled to grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- on non-functional basis. However, the same was not granted to him in view of the clarification issued by the Ministry of Finance vide letter dated 11.02.2009, whereby grant of the said benefit was restricted to cases of regular promotion and was not extended to financial upgradation under ACP/MACP.

Learned counsel further submits that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 13225 of 2010 in the case of M. Subramaniam, wherein the clarification issued by the Government of India was set aside and the benefit was directed to be granted in terms of the Resolution dated 29.08.2008. The appeal preferred by the Government of India against the said judgment was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8883 of 2011 vide judgment dated 10.10.2017, and the review petition was also dismissed. He further submits that various Benches of this Tribunal have also granted similar relief in matters concerning the same issue.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant retired from service on 31.08.2025 and that the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- would also have an effect on his pensionary benefits. He further submits that the applicant submitted a representation dated 19.04.2026 relying upon the aforesaid judgments, but the same has not been decided by the respondents. He also places reliance upon the order dated 13.08.2026 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 3125/2026, which, according to him, covers the issue involved in the present matter.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the claim on the ground of delay and laches, submitting that the applicant became eligible for the benefit in the year 2019 but has approached this Tribunal only in the year 2026.

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. We are not inclined to accept the objection of the respondents on the ground of delay and laches at this stage, particularly when the claim relates to non-functional upgradation and the same would also have an effect on the pensionary benefits of the applicant. Accordingly, the objection regarding delay and laches is rejected.

Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate to provide one opportunity to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the applicant dated 19.04.2026, keeping in view the judgments relied upon by the applicant, including the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam (supra), as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 3125/2026, if applicable to the applicant’s case.

The present OA may also be treated as part of representation of the applicant. The respondents are directed to consider the matter and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The OA is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.