Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 09 CAT CK 5717

Shri Manabendra Banik & Anr. vs The Union Of India & Ors.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench · Decided on 7 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member · Mallika Arya, Administrative Member
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 271/2026 (Agartala) with Misc. Appln. 169/2025

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 · 754 words

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that since the issue involved in this case is identical one, the applicants prayer to join together in a single application may be allowed. Accordingly, M.A No. 169/2026 is allowed. Applicants are allowed to pursue the remedy jointly.

2.

This Original application has been preferred to seek the following relief:

“8.1

That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the non-functional upgradation to the applicants in the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 in Pay Band-2 with effect 01.01.2006 that is from the date of completion of 4 years of regular services by the individual applicant in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 with all consequential benefits including re-fixation of pay and allowances and pensionary benefits of the applicants with arrear monetary benefits in the light of the judgment and order dated 06.09.2010 rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P (C) No. 13225/2010 (M. Subramaniam Vs Union of India & Others).

8.2.

Costs of the application

8.3.

Any other relief(s) to which the applicants are entitled as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”

3.

The applicants were working as Superintendent under the respondents. The applicant no. 1 is has retired from the post of Superintendent of the office of the Customs Division, Agartala. The Applicant no. 2 has retired from the post of Inspector of Customs. They have filed this O.A praying for a direction upon the respondents to grant the G.P of Rs. 5400/-in PB-2 as Non-Functional Grade w.e.f. 01.01.2006 that is from the date of their completion of 4 years regular services in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- with all consequential service benefits including arrear monetary benefits.

As per the applicants they are entitled for the benefits in the light of the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras vide order dated 06.09.2010 in W.P No. 13225 of 2010 (M Subramaniam Vs Union of India & Ors.), which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. (s) 8883 of 2011.

4.

Sri S. Nath, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the issue of grant of GP of Rs. 5400/- in Pay Band— 2 on non-functional basis after four years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800/- is no more res integra, respondents have already implemented judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras vide order dated 06.09.2010 in W.P No. 13225 of 2010 (M. Subramaniam Vs Union of India & Ors.) for those incumbents who had approached before this Hon'ble Tribunal and other benches of Hon'ble Tribunal and granted G.P of Rs. 5400/- in PB-2 as Non-Functional Grade from the date of their completion of 4 years regular services in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- with all consequential benefits vide CBIT & Custom’s Circular dated 27.04.2022.

The applicants have submitted representations (Annexure A-12 colly) for grant of G.P of Rs. 5400/- in PB-2 as Non-Functional Grade from the date of their completion of 4 years regular services with consequential benefits but to no result. Hence, this O.A.

5.

After arguing for some time, Sri S. Nath, learned counsel for the applicants submits that presently, it would suffice the purpose of the applicants if the Respondent/competent authority be directed to consider their representations Annexure A-12 colly, in the light of the abovementioned judgements treating this O.A as part of their representations and dispose of the same within a stipulated period of time.

6.

Sri S.K. Ghosh, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents submits that he has no objection if direction is issued to the respondents to consider the representations of the applicants as per Rules.

7.

In view of the above, without entering into the merit of the matter and with the consent of the parties, the O.A is disposed of with a direction upon the competent authority to consider the representations of the applicants at Annexure 12 colly, by treating this O.A as part of it and communicate his decision by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

8.

Applicants are directed to serve copy of the O.A along with copy of this order to the respondents within a week.

9.

Accordingly, the O.A. stands disposed of at the admission stage with no order as to costs. M.A also stands disposed of.