Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Brijender Singh Verma vs Revenue on 18 April, 2024
1
OA No. 570/2024
(C-II, item - 31)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 570/2024
M.A. No. 558/2024
This the 18th day of April, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Brijendra Singh Verma (B.S. Verma),
Age 64 Years Group "B",
S/o Late Shri Bhoop Singh Verma,
R/o M-81, 2nd Floor, My Floor II,
Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana, Retired as Admin Officer,
Under the Cadre Controlling Authority of Chief
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise,
Delhi Zone (Cadre Control),
ICD, Delhi.
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Padma Kr. S.)
Versus
1. Union of India, through,
The Revenue Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Chairman,
Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs,
Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 01.
3. The Chief Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise,
Delhi Zone (Cadre Controlling Authority),
C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002.
4. The Principal Commissioner,
Delhi North CGST & Central Excise,
C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Seema Grover)
2
OA No. 570/2024
(C-II, item - 31)
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A):
MA No. 558/2024 This MA seeks condonation of delay in filing the associated OA. The delay as computed by the applicant is stated to be of 243 days. Notice was issued on 19.02.2024.
However, despite reasonable opportunities, the respondents are yet to file any response to the MA. Further, we note that the subject of the OA and the relief prayed for relate to grant of an appropriate Grade Pay as also extension of Non-
functional Grade and this constitutes a continuing cause of action. We have no doubt in opining that the matter deserves to be heard on merits and the reasons for the same would be clear in the following paragraphs.
Accordingly, the MA is allowed.
O.A. No. 570/2024Issue notice to the respondents.
Ms. Seema Grover, learned counsel, who appears for the respondents on advance service accepts notice and she fairly seeks a reasonable period of time to file an appropriate reply to the OA. While we recognize her right to file the reply, we also cannot ignore the fact that the subject of this OA has been adjudicated in a large number 3 OA No. 570/2024 (C-II, item - 31) of OAs by different Benches of this Tribunal and the issue has been settled up to the level of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Against this background, it would be wastage of the precious time of this Tribunal to keep dwelling upon the present OA. Moreover, judicial propriety and discipline also binds us to adhere to the adjudication already made on the subject. Although the applicant has annexed a large number of orders in support of his claim in the OA, we would like to reproduce the latest one dated 06.01.2022 in OA No. 3768/2018. The said order reads as under:
"Through the medium of this Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the applicants are aggrieved by the orders dated 01.05.2018, 30.05.2018, 12.06.2018 and 30.07.2018 etc. whereby the respondents have refused to extend them the benefits of judgment dated 06.09.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. (C) No.13225/2010 - M. Subramaniam v. Union of India & Ors., which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.883/2011 on the ground that they were not parties neither before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras nor before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid matters.
2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are that the applicants were promoted as Intelligence Officer in DRI/DGCEI in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000. The next promotional post of Intelligence Officer is Senior Intelligence Officer in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000. One Mr. M. Subramaniam, Inspector of CBEC (equivalent to the post of Intelligence Officer in DRI/DGCEI), Chennai Zone was granted the first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2004 in the pay scale of Rs.7500- 12000, which is the pay scale of Superintendent (equivalent to the post of Senior Intelligence Officer in DRI/DGCEI) in the hierarchy of post.
2.1 It is further noted that the Central Civil Service (Revised) Pay Rules, 2008, which came into effect from 01.01.2006, merged the pay scales of Rs.5500-9000 with 4 OA No. 570/2024 (C-II, item - 31) Rs.6500-10500 and thereafter the said pay scales of Inspectors/Intelligence Officers were revised to PB-2 scale of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600. It is relevant to mention here that the pay scale of Superintendent/Senior Intelligence Officer was revised from Rs.7500-12000 to PB-2 scale of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4800.
2.2 Meanwhile, the Government introduced the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) which has permitted the next higher Grade Pay on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service w.e.f. 01.09.2008. As per Resolution No.1/1/2008 dated 29.08.2008 issued by the Ministry of Finance and notified in the Gazette, all Group B officers (Intelligence Officers/Inspectors) of the Department of Revenue will be granted Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2 on non-functional basis after four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800.
2.3 One similarly placed Officer Mr. M. Subramaniam, Inspector (now Superintendent) of Customs & Central Excise Department, Chennai Zone) being aggrieved by non- grant of Non Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) Grade Pay Rs.5400 in spite of completing four years of regular service in Grade Pay of Rs.4800, filed OA No.167/2009 before the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal. However, the said OA was dismissed by the Chennai Bench vide order dated 19.04.2010. Feeling aggrieved, Mr. M. Subramaniam challenged the order of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. (C) No.13225/2010. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed the Writ Petition vide its judgment dated 06.09.2010 and directed the respondents (CBEC) to grant Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- to the petitioner from the date when he completed four years regular service in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 (Grade Pay of Rs.4800).
2.4 The Department challenged the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8883/2011. However, no stay was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2.5 It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that they are entitled to NFSG Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 on completion of four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800 as per the Resolution of the Government dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure A-5) and also in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. (C) No.13225/2020 - M. Subramaniam v. Union of India. The applicants have also filed a table whereby they have given the date(s) from which they have been granted the Grade Pay of Rs.4800. However, in the case of applicant no.3 (Deepak Kumar Mangotra) it is mentioned that he has not been granted Grade Pay of Rs.4800 till date 5 OA No. 570/2024 (C-II, item - 31) although due to him w.e.f. December, 2012 and the same will be granted to him also shortly.
2.6 It is further submitted on behalf of the applicants that the applicants had been orally informed by the respondents that since the matter pertaining to Mr. M. Subramaniam was pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court they should await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the applicants have acted on the said assurance.
2.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 10.10.2017 in Civil Appeal No.8883/2011 filed by the CBEC, challenging the judgment dated 06.09.2010 of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of M. Subramaniam, had dismissed the OA.
2.8 The applicants being similarly situated, therefore, preferred representations (Annexure A-9 Colly.) to the respondents for extension of the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 06.09.2010 and judgment dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8883/2011.
2.9 The respondents, however, vide their orders dated 01.05.2018 to 30.07.2018 (impugned herein) refused to grant the benefits of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 to the applicants from the date(s) they completed four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800 on the ground that they were not parties to the aforesaid noted judgments neither before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras nor before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2.10 It is argued that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is judgment in rem and hence the benefits should be extended to all identically/similarly situated persons like the applicants. It is further argued that the said impugned action of the respondents is contrary to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The representations pertaining to applicants no.5 & 8 are still pending and they have been orally informed by the respondents that similar order will be passed in their case, as has been done in the case of others.
2.11 Left with no other alternate, applicants have filed the instant OA, praying for the following reliefs:
"(a) Quash and set aside the Orders dated 01.05.2018, 30.05.2018, 12.06.2018 and 30.07.2018 etc., mentioned in Para 1 of this OA whereby, the Respondents turned down the genuine request of the Applicants to extend the benefits of Judgment dated 06.09.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras which also attained finality in the Hon'ble Apex court. And 6 OA No. 570/2024 (C-II, item - 31)
(b) Declare the action of the Respondents in not granting the Non Functional Grade Pay of 5400 (PB-2) to applicants on completion of 4 years of service in Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 as illegal and unjustified. And
(c) Direct the Respondents to grant Non Functional Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 (PB-2) to the Applicants from the respective due dates of completion of 4 years service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- And
(d) Accord all the consequential benefits (viz.
promotion, seniority, difference in pay, arrears, interest @ 18% p.a. on the arrears etc.) the Applicants. And
(e) Award cost in favor of the Applicants and against the respondents. And/ or
(f) Pass any further order, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. In support of prayers of the applicants, Shri Sourabh Ahuja, learned counsel for applicants has taken the following grounds:
3.1 The action of the respondents is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as they have treated the applicants differently merely because they were not parties to W.P. (C) No.13225/2010. The invidious discrimination caused to them is writ large from the pay scales/grade pay given to them and similarly placed persons.
3.2 Shri Ahuja submitted that the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., 1998 (1) SLJ 54 has clearly ruled that similarly situated persons cannot be treated differently and identical benefits should be extended to them.
3.3 Shri Ahuja had further argued that the applicants are squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. (C) No.13225/2010, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in all fairness, they should also have been extended the benefits of the said decision, being similarly situated.
3.4 Shri Sourabh Ahuja further submitted that being a model employer the respondents should not discriminate between the identically situated employees. It is pleaded that the said decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. (C) No.13225/2010 has already been implemented by the respondents and attained finality. As such, benefit of the same should have been extended to them being similarly situated.
3.5 Shri Ahuja has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. v. Ex Nk. Balbir Singh, (Civil Appeal @ Diary No.4893/2018) where the Hon'ble Court held as follows:7 OA No. 570/2024
(C-II, item - 31) "...We cannot appreciate the conduct of the Union of India in this regard of filing civil appeals/special leave petitions after the issue has been concluded by this court. This is unnecessarily adding to the burden of the Justice Delivery Systems for which the Union of India must take full responsibility.
The civil appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited by the appellants."
3.6 Shri Ahuja had further argued that the respondents did not appreciate that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. (C) No.13225/2010 lays down the law as to how the provisions of the Gazette notification are to be interpreted. As such, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (Civil Appeal No.9849 of 2014, arising out of SLP(C) No.18639 of 2012) decided on 17.10.2014, it is incumbent upon the respondents to extend the benefits of the judgment to all similarly/identically placed persons voluntarily irrespective of the fact whether they approached the court or not.
3.7 Shri Ahuja has further pleaded that in similar cases (i.e., OA No.1707/2016, OA No.1982/2018) this Tribunal was pleased to allow the said OAs vide its judgments dated 11.04.2018 and 21.05.2018 respectively in the light of dismissal of Civil Appeal No.8883/2011 by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.10.2017.
In view of the above, Mr. Ahuja had prayed that applicants may also be extended the benefit of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. (C) No.13225/2010, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.8883/2011, being similarly situated.
4. Per contra, pursuant to the notices issued by the Tribunal the respondents entered their appearance and filed their reply, wherein they have contended that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity and that the applicants are not entitled to any relief as sought by them and prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4.1 Shri Ranjan Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondents contended that MACP Scheme provided for three upgradations after 10, 20 and 30 years respectively in the successive grade pay recommended revised pay band and grade pay as prescribed in the hierarchy in the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. As per para 8.1 of MACP the Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2 and Rs.5400 in PB-3 shall be treated as a separate Grade pay for the purpose of grant of upgradation. It is further submitted that Superintendents in Grade Pay of Rs.4800 get NFSG in GP of Rs.5400 in PB-2 after four years of regular service. After promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner, they are placed in Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-3. Such superintendents are claiming 8 OA No. 570/2024 (C-II, item - 31) MACP benefit after ignoring NFSG granted to them, i.e., claiming financial upgradation under MACP in the promotional hierarchy which is against the MACP Scheme. It is submitted that in terms of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 both the grades have been placed at different pay levels, Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2 has been placed in pay level-9 with initial pay of Rs.53100 and GP of Rs.5400 in PB-3 has been placed in pay level-10 with initial pay of Rs.56100.
4.2 Shri Tyagi had further submitted that applicants in the present OA are basically seeking MACP benefit in promotional hierarchy. However, MACP benefit is admissible only in hierarchy of Grade Pay.
4.3 Shri Tyagi contended that on the same issue, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal vide common order dated 22.09.2017 has dismissed a number of OAs in favour of Govt. The Ernakulam Bench also vide order dated 19.06.2008 has dismissed OA Nos.180/00123/2017, OA No.18000404/2017, OA No.180/00983/2016 and OA No.180/00405/2017.
4.4 Keeping in view the above facts, Shri Tyagi contended that the applicants are not eligible for grant of 3rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme as they were granted NFSG of Rs.5400 in PB-2.
5. The applicants have also filed their rejoinder, more or less, reiterating their stand taken in the OA. It has been again submitted that the applicants in the present OA are similarly placed employees to that of M. Subramanim (supra) and entitled for the same benefits.
6. We have heard Shri Saurabh Ahuja, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Ranjan Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The respondents have also filed MA No.2437/2021 seeking leave of this Tribunal to file the additional affidavit on record. For the reasons stated in the said MA and in the interest of justice we allow this MA and take the additional affidavit on record for proper adjudication of the matter.
8. In the additional affidavit the respondents have submitted that the instant OA is related to entitlement of non-functional grade pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 on completion of 04 years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs.4800 to applicants. The applicants have submitted representations on 16.03.2018, 23.03.2018 and 20.04.2018 for revision of pay and consequential benefits in the light of judgment dated 06.09.2010 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of M. Subramaniam v. Union of India & Ors. (supra), whereby the Hon'ble High Court directed the respondents to extend the benefit of grade pay of Rs.5400 to the petitioner. The department challenged 9 OA No. 570/2024 (C-II, item - 31) the said judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No.8883/2011 which was dismissed. However, the department filed Review Petition no.2512/2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After dismissal of the Review Petition, the matter was examined by the Ministry in consultation with Department of Expenditure. Thereafter, Ministry vide its letter dated 31.10.2018 directed for implementation of order dated 06.09.2010 of Hon'ble Madras High Court in personam only. Accordingly, the representations of the applicants were considered and rejected by the respondents vide the impugned orders.
8.1 Further, on receipt of some reference from field formations of CBIC as to whether the officers who had got the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 by virtue of financial upgradation under ACP will also be entitled to the benefit of further non-functional upgradation on completion of 04 years of service in the prescribed pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 in terms of the recommendation of the 6th CPC as accepted by the Govt. The matter was again examined at length in consultation with Department of Expenditure and it was clarified vide CBIC letter No.A- 26017/98/2008-Ad.IIA dated 11.02.2009 that the officers who got the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 (corresponding to grade pay of Rs.4800) by virtue of financial upgradation under ACP will not be entitled to the benefit of further non-functional upgradation to the pre- revised pay scale of Rs.8000-130500 (corresponding to the grade pay of Rs.5400) on completion of 04 years in the pre- revised pay scale of Rs.7500-12000. It was again clarified vide Board's letter No.A-26017/98/2008-Ad.II A dated 16th September, 2009 that non-functional grade pay of Rs.5400 in pB-2 will not be granted to such Group B officers who have got the Grade Pay of Rs.4800 on up gradation under the ACP Scheme.
8.2 It is further submitted now that Ministry's letter No.F.No.23011/67/2020-Ad.II A dated 07.04.2021, addressed to Pr. Chief Controller of Accounts, CBIC (Coordination Expenditure Section) vide which it has been conveyed that the matter of extending the benefit of order dated 06.09.2010 of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Subramaniam (supra) to all similarly placed officers has been examined in the Board and Department of Expenditure has not agreed to the proposal of the Department to extend the benefit of the said judgment to all similarly placed officers. Further, it has been clarified by the Ministry vide aforesaid letter that the Court judgments which are passed by placing reliance on M. Subramaniam (supra) are forwarded to the Ministry for further directions in so far as implementation of such CAT/Court orders are concerned.
10 OA No. 570/2024(C-II, item - 31)
9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the pleadings on record.
10. We are of the considered view that the issue raised in this OA is no more res integra as the same has already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. (C) No.13225/2010 - M. Subramaniam v. Union of India & Ors., which has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We find from the judgment that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has clarified as to how four years regular service is to be counted for the purpose of granting non-functional upgradation to Group B officer. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras is reproduced below for convenience:
"6. It is not in dispute that the Government of India vide its resolution, dated 29.8.2008 granted grade pay of Officers of the Department of Posts, Revenue, etc. who completed four years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800/- in Pay Band 2. According to the petitioner, he has already reached the pay scale of Rs. 7500-250-12000 by way of ACP Scheme on 1.1.2004 which is corresponding to the pay scale of Superintendent of Central Excise (Group B Post) and therefore, on completion of four years, he is entitled to the grade pay of Rs. 5400/0 with effect from 1.1.2008. In support of his claim, the petitioner also relied upon a clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in Letter F.No.A2601/98/2008-AdIIA, dated 21.11.2008 clarifying that the four year period is to be counted from the date on which an officer is placed in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000. However, the claim of the petitioner was denied based on the clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, dated
11.2.2009, wherein, it was clarified that the Officers who got the pre-revised pay-scale of 7500-12000 (corresponding to grade pay of Rs. 4800) by virtue of financial upgradation under ACP would not be entitled to the benefit of further non- financial upgradation the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs. 8,000- 13,500 (corresponding to grade pay of Rs. 5400) on completion of 4 years in the Pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000.
7. We are unable to agree with this clarification given by the under Secretary to Government on India, since in an earlier clarification, dated 21.11.2004 of the Deputy Secretary to Government of India, it was clarified as to how the 4 year period is to be counted with effect from the date on which an officer is placed in the pay scale of Rs. 7,500-12000 (Pre- revised) or with effect from 1.1.2006, i.e. the date on which the recommendation of the 6th CPC came into force, It was clarified that the 4 year period is to be counted with effect from the date on which an officer is placed in the pay scale of Rs. 7,500-12000 (Pre-revised).
8. Thus if an officer has completed 4 year on 1.1.2006 or earlier, he will be given the non-functional upgradation with effect from 1.1.2006 and if the officer completes 4-year on a date after 1.1.2006, he will be given non-functional upgradation from such date on which he completes 4-year in the pay scale of Rs. 7,500-12000 (pre-revised), since the petitioner admittedly completed 4 year period in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000as on 1.1.2008, he is entitled to grade pay of Rs. 5,400/-. In fact, the Government on India, having accepted the recommendations of the 6th pay commission, issued a resolution dated 29.8.2008 granting grade pay of Rs. 5400/- to 11 OA No. 570/2024 (C-II, item - 31) the Group B Officers in pay Band 2 on non-financial basis after four Group B Officers in pay Band 2 of Rs. 4800/- in pay band
2. Therefore, denial of the same benefit to the petitioner based on the clarification issued by the Under Secretary to the Government was contrary to the above said clarification and without amending the rules of the revised pay scale, such decision cannot be taken. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order of the Tribunal, dated 19.4.2010 passed in O.A. No. 167 of 2009. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of grade pay of Rs. 5400/- to the petitioner from 1.1.2008 as per the resolution dated 29.8.2010. No costs."
11. The learned counsel for the applicants have demonstrated that the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal at Madras in OA No.1524/2019 - All India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers Association (Chennai Unit) v. Union of India & Ors. and Allahabad Bench in OA No.536/2020 - Suresh Chander Sharma v. Union of India held that the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam (supra) is judgment in rem and passed orders to extend the benefits of the judgments to the applicants therein.
12. Further, the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal vide its judgment dated 13.09.2018 was pleased to allow OA No.24/2015 & other connected matters by placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in M. Subramaniam (supra) and the said judgment has also been implemented vide order dated 27.06.2019 (Annexure A-14). It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents vide their office order dated 06.12.2019 have extended the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in M. Subramaniam (supra )to the applicants in OA No.358/2019 - Shiladitya Maitra & Ors. v. Union of India (Kolkata Bench) vide their office order dated 06.12.2019 (Annexure A-15).
13. From the above it is clear that the impugned orders qua the applicants cannot sustain in the eyes of law. As such, we are satisfied that the applicants are similarly situated with M. Subramaniam (supra) and are required to be extended the benefit of the said judgment.
14. During the course of the argument, Shri Ahuja, learned counsel for the applicants brought to our notice that the Civil Appeal No.(s)8883 of 2011 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the hands of the department, has been dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2017.
15. The respondents in their reply have taken the stand for not granting Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- to the applicants in PB-2 on non-functional basis after four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in PB-2, 12 OA No. 570/2024 (C-II, item - 31) which has undoubtedly been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in M. Subramaniam (supra). Furthermore, the Civil Appeal No.(s)8883 of 2011 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the respondent- Department has also been dismissed on 10.10.2017 and the said verdict of Hon'ble High Court of Madras has become final. Once the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in M. Subramaniam (supra) has attained finality, the respondents cannot deny the benefit of the same to the applicants before us, who are similarly placed. We, therefore, hold that the applicants herein also entitled for similar benefits, as has been extended to M. Subramaniam (supra).
16. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, this OA succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- to the applicants on non-functional basis with effect from the date(s) they had completed four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- with all consequential benefits, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
17. We also notice that the respondents are ignoring the fact that apart from this Bench, other Benches of the Tribunal have repeatedly directed compliance of the said judgment of M. Subramaniam (supra) holding that the judgment is to be complied in rem and not to be treated as in personam. We, therefore, hold that the said judgment is not in personam and benefit of the same is required to be extended to all similarly situated persons including the applicants before us, to avoid needless litigation in future.
18. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
2. It is pertinent to reiterate that while deciding the aforesaid OA, it was directed that the judgment upon which the Tribunal had relied upon, i.e., M. Subramaniam vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 13225/2010 dated 06.09.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras should not be treated in personam but by considering in rem and the benefit should be given to all the similarly 13 OA No. 570/2024 (C-II, item - 31) situated persons. We are disappointed that these specific directions have been ignored.
3. In view of what has been outlined above, the present OA is allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim and representation of the applicant for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- on completion of four years of service on the analogy of the judgment quoted verbatim above, which has further relied upon the judgment of M. Subramaniam (supra).
4. These directions shall be complied with by the respondents within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
5. We would like to again emphatically state that the respondents should seriously consider implementation of the issue in rem rather than personam to obviate unnecessary litigation.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Tarun Shridhar) (R. N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/