AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice
Heard Mr. Himanshu Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Petitioners/Union of India.
The Petitioners, in this writ petition, seek to assail the order dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (for brevity, ‘CAT’) in Original Application No. 308 of 2026, whereby the Respondents have been granted the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- on a non-functional basis with effect from the date on which they completed four years of regular service till the date they were granted A.C.P./M.A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/-, along with all consequential benefits. It has also been observed that, in case any of the Respondents is superannuated, the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- shall also be extended to him from the date of entitlement, along with arrears of pay, and their retiral dues shall be revised accordingly, including the P.P.O.
Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Petitioners/Union of India, submits that the learned CAT, solely relying upon the order dated 23.11.2022 passed in Original Application No. 203/758/2022 (Surendra Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others), granted such relief. It is further submitted that the said order passed by the CAT, Ernakulam Bench, was challenged before the High Court of Kerala, and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.09.2023. The Union of India, being dissatisfied, filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 12304 of 2024, which was dismissed on 13.05.2024. Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Petitioners, however, submits that the learned CAT should have adjudicated the matter on its own merits by scrutinising the facts of the individual cases of the Respondents. Without doing so, the learned CAT, being swayed by the aforesaid judgments and orders, passed the impugned order. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside, and the matter should be remitted to the CAT for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of hearing.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioners/Union of India and perusing the impugned order, it appears that, apart from relying upon the aforesaid orders and judgments, the learned CAT also took note of the judgment in M. Subramaniam v. Union of India and Others, passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition (C) No. 13225 of 2010, disposed of on 06.09.2010, wherein a similar view was taken. Merely because the Respondents were not parties to the said order, they should not be deprived of the benefit.
In that view of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the observations and findings of the learned CAT in the impugned order (Annexure P/1). On perusal, it also appears that the learned CAT meticulously dealt with the matter, relying upon settled legal principles laid down by various High Courts as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and arrived at its independent conclusion. As such, there is hardly any scope for interference with the impugned order (Annexure P/1).
In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned CAT under Annexure P/1.
Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.