Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
All India Naval Clerks Association ... vs The Secretary Ministry Of Defence New ... on 4 December, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No. 180/00518/2021
Thursday, this the 4th day of December, 2025.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. All India Naval Clerks Association,
represented by the General Secretary,
P.V. Viju, aged 48 years,
S/o Late P.K. Vijayan,
UDC, INS Venduruthy,
HQSNC, Kochi-682 004
Residing at Padmatheertham,
Kumbalam P.O. Ernakulam-682 506.
2. P.G. Manoj, aged 46 years,
S/o P.G. Gopi,
UD Clerk, Material Organisation, Kochi-682 004
Residing at Sree Nilayam,
Bazar Post Officer, Civil Station,
Alappuzha-688 012
3. M. Smitha, aged 41 years,
D/o R. Mohana Menon,
UD Clerk, Material Organisation, Kochi-682 004
Residing at Edavoor Agathuttu House,
Thotakattukkara, Aluva-683 108
4. G. Veena, aged 33 years,
D/o K. Gopalakrishnan,
UD Clerk, Material Organisation, Kochi-682 004
Residing at Krishna Vihar, Thondiparambu Madom,
North Fort Gate, Tripunithura-682 301.
2025.12.04
V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47
+05'30'
2
O.A No. 180/518/2021
5. Nair Vinod Gopalakrishnan, aged 41 years
S/o K. Gopalakrishnan Nair,
UD Clerk, Material Organisation, Kochi-682 004
Residing at Remalayam, Meenam North,
Maloor College P.O., Pathanapuram,
Kollam, Kerala -689 695 - Applicants
[By Advocates : Mr. S. Radhakrishnan, Mr. S. Rajmohan and Mr.
Aditya Thejus Krishnan ]
Versus
1. Union of India represented by
The Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence, New Delhi-110 001
2. The Department of Personnel & Training,
Represented by its Secretary,
North Block, New Delhi-110 001
3. Integrated Head Quarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy),
Directorate of Civilian Personnel,
D-II Wing, Sena Bhavan, New Delhi-110 011
4. The Flag Officer Commanding in Chief,
Headquarters, Southern Naval Command,
Naval Base, Kochi-04. - Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr. S.R.K. Prathap, ACGSC ]
The Original Application having been heard on 28.11.2025, the Tribunal
on 04.12.2025 delivered the following:
2025.12.04
V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47
+05'30'
3
O.A No. 180/518/2021
ORDER
Per: Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Administrative Member The 1st applicant is All India Naval Clerks Association and applicants 2 to 5 are individuals, who are UDCs working with the Indian Navy submitted the following:-
The parity upto the level of Assistants in the CSSS and other field formations has been established by the report of the VI CPC and has also been settled by various Courts and Tribunals. The VI CPC report had categorically stated in para 3.1.3 that all posts till Assistant will have to be equated. Accepting the recommendation of the 6th pay commission report, the Government of India prescribed same Pay Band and Grade Pay (PB1 with GP of Rs.2400/-) to the UDCs in the Central Secretariat Service and in different lower formations. The UDCs are the feeder category of Assistants and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the parity in the level of UDC is also established by the VI CPC.
1.2 The established historical parity was disturbed by the DoPT by introducing the new placemen level of UDC-NGFG to the Central Secretariat service alone by Annexure A1 with a Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- by upgrading 30% of the post of 2025.12.04 V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47 +05'30' 4 O.A No. 180/518/2021 Upper Division Clerk, in CSS and CSSS.
1.3 The Ministry of Defence extended the benefit of Non Functional Selection Grade to the clerical staff of the Armed Force Headquarters by amending the Armed Forces Headquarters Clerical Service Rules, 2001 with the Armed Forces Headquarters Clerical Service (Amendment) Rules, 2014. Subsequently, it was extended by the Ministry of Defence to the UDCs of AFHQ as well, completely overlooking the UDCs of Navy, under the same Ministry. Thus the Non Functional Selection Grade was implemented in CSSS, CSCS and in AFHQ Clerical Service etc. 1.4 All India Naval Clerks Association made repeated representations to the Ministry of Defence for extending the Non Functional Selection Grade in UDC cadre, in the line of the AFHQ Clerical Service Rules, 2001, but to no avail. The malfeasance and nonfeasance on the part of Ministry of Defence and DoP&T in not upgrading 30% of the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) as UDC NFSG in Navy is clearly arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal in the eye of law, when such grade was granted to the identical and similar grade employees of Central Secretariat Civil Service, Central Secretariat Stenographers and Armed Forces Clerical Service, with whom historical parity has already been established and 2025.12.04 V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47 +05'30' 5 O.A No. 180/518/2021 equality is also established by the 6 th Central Pay Commission and the same was accepted by the Government of India by notifying the CCS(RP) Rules 2008.
2. Aggrieved, applicants have sought the following reliefs:-
a) Call for the records connected with the case;
b) Declare that the parity of the Ministerial cadre in the Central Secretariat Civil Services and the lower formations are already established with the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission report and by the decision in P.K. Sehgal v. Union of India
c) Declare that the Upper Division Clerks in the Navy are entailed to get the same promotional avenues as the UDCs in the Central Secretariat Service and the Armed Forces Headquarters.
d) Direct the respondents to extend the provisions of Annexure A-1 to the Navy, by placing 30% of eligible UDCs in the non functional selection grade in the grade pay of Rs. 4200/- w.e.f.
22.06.2011, with all consequential benefits;
e) Direct the respondents to effect consequential changes in the grade of Assistants as was done in the case of Central Secretariat Service and AFHQ to avoid any anomaly in that grade.
3. Respondents in their reply submitted that the applicants are trying to compare the applicants with the employees of Central Secretariat Civil Service, Central Secretariat Stenographers and Armed Forces Clerical Service. The selection process of the above mentioned cadres and that of applicants are different. The work nature of the applicants from the above mentioned staffs are 2025.12.04 V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47 +05'30' 6 O.A No. 180/518/2021 different. The parity can be extended only if the cadre to which the parity is demanding are in the same footing. Therefore there is no illegality or unjust in not to award parity with the employees of Central Secretariat Civil Service, Central Secretariat Stenographers and Armed Forces Clerical Service. 3.2 It has been admitted by the respondents that during the 6 th Pay Commission, the pay scales of the office staff of Armed Force Headquarters/Central Civil Service Cadre and lower formations including Navy were in parity. 6th Pay Commission had also recommended parity in the status of ministerial staff in Central Secretariat Service with that of Ministerial staff in Central Secretariat staff and in the lower formations was getting the same Grade Pay in the grades of Lower Division Clerks and Upper Division Clerks. However, DoPT vide OM dated 22.06.2011 had introduced Non-Functional Selection Grade in the Ministerial Cadre of Upper Division Clerk in Central Secretariat Service and stated that Upper Division Clerks of Central Secretariat and Stenographers Grade D of Central Secretariat shall be eligible for placement in the Non-Functional Selection Grade on commission of 5 years of approved service as Upper Division Clerk/Stenographer Group D subject to the condition that the total number in the Grade will be restrict to 30% of the sanctioned strength. However, the said DoPT 2025.12.04 V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47 +05'30' 7 O.A No. 180/518/2021 order was made applicable only to the clerical staff in Central Secretariat Clerical Service and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service in the cadre with Grade Pay of 4200/-. Later on the benefit of Non Functional Selection Grade was also extended to Upper Division Clerks of Armed Force Headquarters vide letter dated 17.08.2011. DoPT had not issued any order or O.M. for other departments and subordinate offices to implement the scheme of Non Functional upgradation to its eligible staff. Hence, DoPT OM dated 22.06.2011 and Armed Forces Headquarters Order dated 17.08.2011 are only applicable to there own staff and it could not be extended to the Clerical staff of 3rd respondent office. 3.3 The respondents cited the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary & Ors. vs. Seema Sharma dated 12.05.2022:-
"25. This Court cannot interfere with the policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been fairer; or wiser as held by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narmada Bachao Anadolan reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639 and relied upon and re-affirmed in Sudhir Budakoti & Others (supra)".
3.4 Respondents have further submitted that in the JCM meeting, the All India Naval Clerk Association raised the point regarding 30% upgradation of 2025.12.04 V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47 +05'30' 8 O.A No. 180/518/2021 Upper Division Clerks for Non Functional Upgradation. The point raised by the All India Naval Clerks Association is as follows:
a) AINCA has raised an issue regarding upgradation of 30% of UDC's as UDC nonfunctional grade in PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200) on par with UDCs of Armed Force Headquarters. Even though the issue was raised well in advance, Navy has not taken up the case with Ministry of Defence so far. In this connection a copy of Gazette Notification SRO 04 dated 31.01.2014 is enclosed for ready reference. It is also pertinent to mention that as per 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations vide para 14 chapter 3.1 for granting parity upto Assistant Subordinate Offices with Central Secretariat Cadre was accepted and executed by the Government
b) In view of the above, it is requested that immediate action may be initiated for extending the parity of UDCs in Navy with UDCs Armed Force Headquarters Cadre by appropriate amendment in recruitment rules at the earliest.
As per the Minutes of the Meeting (Annexure- A7) :-
Status: The structure of pay scale of Clerical Staff in Armed Force vis-à-vis Armed Force Headquarters is different. Hence no parity can be maintain.
Decision:
Point to closed.
4.1 The respondents have cited CAT Principal Bench decision in OA/527/1997 dated 28.09.1998 in P.K. Sehgal and Others v. Union of India and others which 2025.12.04 V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47 +05'30' 9 O.A No. 180/518/2021 had observed as follows:-
"5. One of the grounds chosen by the applicants to assail the aforesaid upgradation is that the duties and responsibilities of the applicants are in no way inferior to those of Stenos C of CSSS. That confining A-1 benefit only to Assistants of CSS and also Grade C Stenos of CSSS has been held to be wrong by this Tribunal in OAs 144A/93, 985/93 and 548/94 decided on 19.01.1996.........
"14. In Para 18 of their order dated 19.1.1996 in OAs 144A/98, 985/93 and 548/94, the Tribunal has observed as under.
"This part of OM has been examined by the various Benches of the Tribunal, Assistants and Stenographers Grade C working in the department of Central Administrative Tribunal, Border Security Force, Indo Ti-betan Border Police, Central Industrial Security Force and Bureau of Police and Research Development were granted parity with the Assistants of CSS and Stenographers Grade C of CSSS by the Tribunal. It is also worthwhile mentioning that there was no provision for direct recruitment to the post of Assistants in Central Administrative Tribunal."
17. We find that the respondents stand that applicants are promotees and they cannot be granted the revised pay scale can hardly be sustained in law. Even in CSSS this scale has been given to the promotee stenos. It is also seen that the 4th PC had recommended the same classification, namely Group C for the Steno Grade C of the CSSS and Steno Grade III in the attached and subordinate offices. The revised classification of Group B is only notional and is allowed to be continued as a matter of indulgence. When this court directed payment of CSSS scale to some of the attached and subordinate offices and the order this court dated 19.1.1996 in OA 985/93 has attained finality after the dismissal of SLP, there is no justification to distinguish and incriminate a few subordinate office like the DG 2025.12.04 V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47 +05'30' 10 O.A No. 180/518/2021 (Inspection)/Department of Revenue, which is part and parcel of Ministry of Finance. Incidentally, the applicants in OA 985/93 are Assistants in the attached/subordiante offices of DG/Income-Tax (Investigation) under the same department of Revenue. We find no difference between the two units.
18. There is nothing on record to show that after recommendation of the 4th PC, which was accepted by the Government, any new development has occurred to create differentiation between the status of the Assistants working in the DGI and that of CSS. The OM dated 31.07.90 has, thus, created disparity between the two and, therefore, the order dated the applicants cannot be sustained on the ground of discrimination."
4.2 The applicant has relied on the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.116/2013 in Shri Kaushik Paik and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. dated 06.09.2013:-
"10. In addition to the above reasons, the Court also notices that the respondents position is further assailable by the fact that other non secretariat organisations such as Central Information Commission, Planning Commission, Central Reserve Police Force, Central Election Commission and the CAT itself has shown the readiness/willingness to provide for higher pay scales as has been sought for by the petitioners in this case. Indeed, similar officials, employees above the rank and status of 'Assistant including Section Officers' are not members of any Secretariat Services. In those organisations, the employees who do receive such higher pay (sought for by the petitioners here) are also equally members of non-secretariat services. The petitioners therefore cannot be discriminated."
2025.12.04 V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47 +05'30' 11 O.A No. 180/518/2021 4.3 This Bench in its decision in OA. 868/2014 dated 09.03.2017 had observed as under:
"7. The judgment in OA No.527/1997 of 28th Sept. 1998 of CAT (PB) pertains to pay parity between Assistant working in Central Secretariat and in other lower formations. Respondent has not made out a case why a similar treatment cannot be extended to applicants, as this is also a case for extending parity to lower formations or field formations. The VI CPC had recommended grade pay of Rs.4800 in PB-2 and 5400 in PB-3 on completion of 4 years service to services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS. Services like AFHQCS/AFHQSS and Ministerial/Secretarial posts in organizations like MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC etc are covered but not AO-II in MoD (Navy). And the respondent does not make out a case, why such a historical parity cannot be established now, on the same argument of extending HQ Secretariat service pay benefits to officials in lower formations and why the applicants are denied the benefit.
8. The respondent has no case that the nature of duties performed by applicants in the lower formations are any different from that performed by the headquarters' offices, thereby making out a case of non-entitlement on the ground of functional differentia. The historical distinction of Secretariat vis-a-vis non-Secretariat appears to be one perpetuated merely to deny the pay similarity, as the nature of duties has over several years after independence, grown and expanded to read like each other. The tendency to look down attitude of the Secretariat on the non-Secretariat has outlived, as the work in non-Secretariat has not only equalled the nature of duties and services in headquarters offices but has overtaken the decentralized and delegated functions arising out of an expansion of organizations in the last 60 plus years of independence. This is a normal trend in the growth of any democracy in one of the largest populated country in the world. Such a growth would not normally end in a dilution but 2025.12.04 V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47 +05'30' 12 O.A No. 180/518/2021 expansion of functions of government departments, and an increasing downward devolution and sharing of functions with the lower formations. Instead of aggregating and consolidating the same in the headquarters secretariat, in the interests of functional efficiency and decentralization, a delegation has been perpetuated to the lower levels. Such a downward devolution of power among the officer cadre away from the Secretariat formations would also reflect in the nature of duties assigned and performed by the non-Secretariat cadre. This should also reflect in the need to remove the distinction between Secretariat and non-Secretariat cadres."
4.4 The applicants have further cited the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Naval Clerks Association and Ors. v. Union of India and others dated 27.07.2022, which brings the issue of parity in pay scale upto Assistant level to finality : -
"In that view of the matter, not to pay the similar pay scale to the appellants/Assistants in other lower formations in the Indian Navy with that of the Assistants in CSS would be clearly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even the same will go against the report submitted by Justice D. Bhaskaran Commission which was directed to be constituted for the very purpose and Justice D. Bhaskaran Commission submitted its report recommending to remove the disparity and thereafter the Central Government accepted the said report. Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error. While passing the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has observed that during the 5th Pay Commission, the Commission constituted for that purpose is supposed to have again studied the quality and quantity of the work of Assistants in CSS and other lower formations. However, the High Court has observed the same on surmises and conjectures and 2025.12.04 V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47 +05'30' 13 O.A No. 180/518/2021 without considering the fact that Justice D. Bhaskaran Commission was constituted for the specific purpose and the Government accepted the same. The learned Tribunal was right in allowing the O.A. preferred by the appellants herein.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated herein above, present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by learned Trial Court is hereby restored. Necessary consequences shall follow"
5.1 Resulting from the above, pay parity in CSSS and in other lower formations has been well established i.e. in view of Justice P. Bhaskaran Commission Report, which equated the posts and Government accepted the parity on 04.05.1990. Subsequently, disparity in the pay scale of Assistants in CSSS and Naval was set right in P.K. Sehgal's case (Annexure A-10). The 6th CPC recommendation established equality between CSSS and subordinate formation till the level of Assistants.
5.2 The 6th Pay Commission had equated the grade upto Assistants in the Secretariat Services with field units, para 3.1.3 of the report of the 6 th CPC report as under.
"Higher pay scales in the Secretariat offices may have been justified in the past when formulation of proper policies was of paramount importance. The present position is different. Today, the weakest link in respect of any Govt. policy is at the 2025.12.04 V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47 +05'30' 14 O.A No. 180/518/2021 delivery stage. This phenomenon is not endemic to India. Internationally also, there is an increasing emphasis on strengthening the delivery lines and de-centralisation with greater role being assigned at delivery points which actually determine the benefits that the common citizen is going to derive out any policy initiative of the Government. The field offices are at the cutting edge of the Administration and may, in most cases, determine whether a particular policy turns out to be a success or a failure in terms of actual benefits to the consumer. Accordingly, the time has come to grant parity between similarity placed personal employed in field offices and in the Secretariat. This parity will need to be absolute till the grade of Assistant. Beyond this it may not be possible or even justified to grant complete parity because the hierarchy and career progression will need to be different taking in view the functional consideration and relatives across the board."
This recommendation was accepted by the Government of India and by Section II of 1st Schedule to the CCS(RP) Rules, 2008, the pay of officers upto the grade of Assistants was equated. Thus the pay commission had categorically stated that upto the grade of Assistant, there is absolute partiy i.e. parity in all respects. 5.3 The settled parity upto the level of Assistant has since been disturbed by introduction of a new grade of UDC(NFSG) and Stenographer Grade D (NFSG) in CSCS and CSSS between UDC and Assistant (Annexure A-1 dated 22.06.2011) and which was later extended to AFHQ Clerical Services and AFHQ Stenographer Services by Ministry of Defence (Annexure A-2). As per First Schedule (Annexure A4), AFHQ Clerical Services applies to integrated HQ of MoD (Army, Navy, Air and 2025.12.04 V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47 +05'30' 15 O.A No. 180/518/2021 Defence staff Headquarters) besides 25 Inter Service organisations of MoD.
6. By the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 27.07.2022, the issue of parity upto the level of Assistants has taken the finality. The Apex Court in the judgment observed not to pay the similar pay scale to the appellants/ Assistants in other level of formations in the Indian Navy with that of the Assistants in CSS would be clearly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even the same will go against the report submitted by Justice P. Bhaskaran Commission report.
7. Considering categorical and relevant recommendation of 6 th CPC which was accepted by the Government, Justice D. Bhaskaran Commission Report accepted by the Government and various judicial pronouncements of this Bench, Principal Bench, Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court, the OA is allowed and disposed off with the following directions:-
Respondents are directed to remove the disparity and extend the benefit to the applicants by introduction of Non-Functional Selection Grade (GP of Rs.
4200/- ) at par with CSCS, CSSS and AFHQ Clerical Services/AFHQ Stenographer 2025.12.04 V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47 +05'30' 16 O.A No. 180/518/2021 Services, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(Dated the 4th December, 2025.)
(BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
va
2025.12.04
V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47
+05'30'
17
O.A No. 180/518/2021
List of Annexures in OA No.180/518/2021
Annexure A-1- A true copy of the OM No.20/49/2009-CS.II(B) dated 22.06.2011 Annexure A-2- A true copy of letter No.A/26041/VICPC/CleAssn/CAO/CP dated 17.08.2011 Annexure A-3- A true copy of letter No.A/47921/1/NFSG/UDC/2013/CAO/P-1 dated 07.01.2013 Annexure A-4- A true copy of the SRO 04 dated 21.01.2014, notifying the AFHQ Clerical Service (Amendment) rules 2014 Annexure A-5- A true copy of the OM No.12/2/2015-CS.II(B) dated 16.11.2015 Annexure A-6- A true copy of the OM No.6/5/2017-CS.II(C) dated 05.03.2018 Annexure A-7- A true copy of the relevant pages of the Minutes of the 20 th Steering Committee Meeting of NHQ JCM Level Annexure A-8- A true copy of the representation AINCA/GC/2018-19 dated 10.08.2018 submitted by the AINCA Annexure A-9- A true copy of the representation dated 08.08.2020 Annexure A-10- A true copy of the order of by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.527/1997 dated 28.09.1998 in P.K. Sehgal v. UOI Annexure A-11- A true copy of the Order dated 09.03.2017 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.868/2014 (N. Velayudhan and Ors. v. Union of India) Annexure A-12- A true copy of the Central Secretariat Service Amendment Rules 2016 dated 02.08.2016 *** 2025.12.04 V R ARUNKUMAR 14:35:47 +05'30'