Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ram Anuj Gound vs Field Gun Factory on 8 October, 2025
(Oral Order)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
****
Original Application No.439/2023
This the 08th Day of October, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)
Ram Anuj Gound S/o Late Ram Nandan, R/o House No.651, Shiv Nagar, Maswanpur,
P.O. - Rawatpur, Kanpur 208019.
........... Applicant
By Advocates: Shri Ashok Kumar Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through it Secretary, Department of Defence Production, Ministry of
Defence, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Executive Director/General Manager, Field Gun Factory (A.W.E.I. Ltd.), Kalpi Road,
Kanpur 208009 (U.P.)
3. Chairman & Managing Director, Ordnance Factory, Kanpur (A.W.E.I. Ltd.), Kalpi
Road, Kanpur 208009 (U.P.)
4. The Director General, Directorate of Ordnance, (Co-ordination & Services) 10-A, S.K.
Bose Road, Kolkata 700 001 (W.B.).
........... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar Shukla
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant Original Application filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following main relief(s):-
"(i) To set aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2023, passed by the respondent No.2 SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.2
(ii) To pass an order or direction commanding the competent authority among the respondents to take a well considered decision on the claim of the applicant regarding the benefit of grade pay of Rs.5400/- w.e.f.
01.03.2014 with consequential pay fixation and benefit of arrears accrued w.e.f. 01.03.2014."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant was initially appointed as a Fitter, a Group-C industrial employee, in the Field Gun Factory, Kanpur. During the course of his service, he was extended the benefit of financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme and accordingly, vide factory order dated 13.09.2010, he was granted the 3rd MACP with the grade pay of ₹4800/- in Pay Band-2 (₹9300-34,800), effective from 01.03.2010, on completion of the prescribed period of service without regular promotion. The applicant ultimately superannuated from service on 31.07.2014, while drawing a basic pay of ₹19,900/- in the aforesaid pay band.
4. The grievance of the applicant is that having been placed in grade pay ₹4800/- (Level-8) w.e.f. 01.03.2010, the applicant became eligible for further non-functional financial upgradation to grade pay ₹5400/- (Level-9) on completion of four years of regular service in the ₹4800/- grade, i.e., from 01.03.2014, in terms of the MACP provisions and corresponding government instructions applicable to Group-B officers. The applicant contends that the benefit of such upgradation was wrongly denied to him, thereby affecting his last pay fixation, pensionary benefits, and consequential arrears.
5. In pursuit of his claim, the applicant submitted a representation dated 19.04.2023 before Respondent No.2, requesting reconsideration and grant of the due upgradation along with arrears. However, the said representation was rejected by the impugned order dated 29.04.2023, without proper consideration of the relevant rules and precedents. Being aggrieved by this rejection and continued denial of the higher grade pay, SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.3 the applicant has preferred the present Original Application seeking appropriate relief from this Tribunal.
6. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents by his Counter Affidavit dated 12.09.2023 stated that the applicant was initially appointed as Trade Apprentice (Millwright) on 18.01.1972 in the Field Gun Factory, Kanpur and thereafter engaged in casual capacity as Millwright 'C' for short periods from 25.02.1976 and 25.05.1976. He was subsequently appointed on probation as Millwright 'C' w.e.f. 23.08.1976, which he successfully completed on 22.02.1977 and was thereafter promoted to Millwright 'A' on 01.03.1980. The post was later re-designated as Millwright (HS) vide Factory Order No.480 dated 07.12.1982. The applicant earned further promotions to Millwright (HS-I) on 13.08.1988, Chargeman (Technical) Grade-II on 17.08.1998, and Chargeman (Technical) Grade-I on 02.04.2007. He was granted MACP-II w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and MACP-III w.e.f. 01.03.2010 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Junior Works Manager (Technical) on 31.05.2010. He ultimately superannuated from service on 31.07.2014 upon attaining the age of sixty years.
7. The respondents' counsel further denied the averments made by the applicant and submitted that all actions taken in his case were in strict conformity with the applicable rules and government instructions. It is contended that the applicant has failed to establish any legal or factual basis for his claim and that the Original Application is based on surmises and conjectures, devoid of any substantiating evidence. They assert that the applicant has also concealed material facts, and therefore, the relief sought is not tenable and the Original Application deserves to be dismissed.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant invited the attention of this Tribunal to its earlier decision dated 22.03.2025 passed in O.A. No.440/2023 (Sarju Mistry vs. Union of India & Ors.) and stated that in a SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.4 similar matter involving identical issues relating to the grant of Non- Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) Pay Scale of ₹9300-34800 in Pay Band-II with Grade Pay of ₹5400/- on completion of four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of ₹4800/-, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant's claim in light of the settled legal position and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam vs. Union of India. The Tribunal, in that case, disposed of the matter with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The learned counsel submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the said decision and similar directions, if issued herein, would redress the grievance of the applicant.
9 Having considered the pleadings of both parties, the documents placed on record and the submissions advanced during the course of hearing, this Tribunal finds that the issue raised by the applicant regarding grant of the Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) Pay Scale of ₹9300- 34800 in Pay Band-II with Grade Pay of ₹5400/- on completion of four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of ₹4800/- stands covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in M. Subramaniam vs. Union of India and by the order of this Tribunal dated 22.03.2025 in O.A. No. 440/2023 (Sarju Mistry vs. Union of India & Ors.).
10. In O.A. No. 440/2023, while dealing with an identical issue, this Tribunal had made the following observations and issued the following directions:-
9. It is reflected from the record that the applicant was granted the benefit of MACP-III with a grade pay of Rs. 4800/- w.e.f. 01.03.2010. The primary contention of the applicant is that he is entitled to a grade pay of Rs. 5400/-
(Level-9) after four years of service in grade pay Rs.4800/- (Level-8), but such a claim for automatic benefit is not provided under the applicable rules.
10. The issue involved in this Original Application regarding the grant of the Non-Functional Grade (NFG) Pay Scale of Rs. 9300-34800/- in Pay Band-II with a Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- from the date on which the applicants SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.5 completed four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- has already been settled by the Madras High Court in the case of M. Subramaniam vs. Union of India, which has been upheld by the Apex Court. After considering the aforesaid judgment, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal decided the several OAs such as Original Application No. 558/2024 at the admission stage itself, vide order dated 24.05.2024. The relevant paragraph of the order dated 24.05.2024, passed in Original Application No. 558/2024, is reproduced below for ready reference:-
6. The short question involved in this case is that whether the applicant, who has completed four years' service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- are entitled to get the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- or not?
7. Since the issue, in hand, has already attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such there is no necessity to give time to the respondents to file their response/Counter Reply by keeping the O.A. pending for long. We may also observe that the judgment passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Subramaniam, which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court is not a judgment in 'personam' but a judgment 'in rem'. We have also carefully perused the judgments as annexed by the learned counsel for the applicant in the O.A. As such, a prayer has been made that the instant O.A. be also disposed of in the light of the directions given by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Subramaniam (supra), which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. It is absolutely evident from the facts on record that the applicant has got the benefit of financial upgradations after rendering 10 years of regular service so much so that he is absolutely eligible to be granted the benefit of Non Functional Grade (NFG) by placing him in the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-
due to the fact that he has also completed four years of regular service in the grade pay Rs. 4800/- w.e.f. from the dates as has been already recorded in paragraph 3.2. of this judgment. Furthermore, in the instant case, applicant is in service and accordingly he is entitled to be granted the benefit of NFG.
9. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, O.A. deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed at the admission stage itself. The competent authority amongst the Respondents must ensure that the benefit of judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of M. Subramaniam, which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court, be also given to the applicant. Accordingly, they are directed to re-fix the pay of the applicant in the Non-Functional Grade (NFG) Pay Scale of Rs. 9300-34800 in Pay Band - II, with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- with all consequential benefits, with effect from the dates that he had completed four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/-. All the consequential benefits shall also accrue. The aforesaid exercise must be carried out by the respondents within a period of five months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11. Similar matter also came for consideration before the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 180/00161/2019 - A.S Peethambaran Vs. U.O.I & Ors and the aforesaid OA was also allowed vide order dated 21.03.2022 following the judgment dated 06.09.2010 in WP (C) No. 13225/2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of M. Subramaniam Vs. Union of India & Ors. Although the aforesaid order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Union of India in OP (CAT) NO. 109 OF 2023 before Hon' High Court of Kerala, the same was SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.6 dismissed vide judgment dated 21.09.2023. Thereafter, the Union of India filed SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).12304/2024 which was also dismissed on 13-05-2024.
12. In light of the settled legal position, the applicant's claim requires reconsideration by the respondents in accordance with the relevant rules and judicial pronouncements. Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the applicant's claim for grant of the Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) Pay Scale of ₹9300-34800 in Pay Band-II with Grade Pay of ₹5400/- from the date he completed four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of ₹4800/-, in view of the orders passed by this Tribunal in similar matters and the judgment in M. Subramaniam vs. Union of India (supra). The respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
........................"
11. In view of the above discussion and consistent judicial pronouncements on the issue, this Tribunal finds that the matter is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in M. Subramaniam vs. Union of India and followed in O.A. No. 440/2023 (Sarju Mistry vs. Union of India & Ors.). Accordingly, the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the applicant's claim for grant of the Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) Pay Scale of ₹9300-34800 in Pay Band-II with Grade Pay of ₹5400/-, from the date he completed four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of ₹4800/-,in accordance with law and in the light of the aforesaid judgments.
12. The respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
13. With the aforesaid direction, the Original Application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anajani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA