Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Chandra Shekhar Prasad vs M/O Finance on 21 March, 2025
1
(Reserved on 19.02.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No. 1004 of 2021
Jabalpur, this the 21st day of March, 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Tejmal Kanther, S/o Shri Shobha Lal Kanther, Dob : 07.09.1963,
Occupation : Superintendent Posted at Lukhnow, R/o D- 381, Azad
Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj). ..........Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through its Revenue Secretary, Govt. of India,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,
Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, 19 Mall Road,
Morar, Gwalior - 474006 (M.P). ........Respondents
Alongwith
Original Application No. 413 of 2021
1. Santhosh Kumar Pathak, S/o Shri Yogendra Pathak, Dob
25.05.1971, Occupation: Superintendent, P&I Cell,
Chittorgarh.
2. Ranjana Pathak, W/o Shri Manish Pathak, DoB 15.01.1972,
Occupation - Superintendent, O/o the Dy. Narcotics
Commissioner, Mahaveer Nagar, Jhalawar Road, Kota, R/o 2-
M-6, Rangbari Scheme, Kota (Rajasthan).
ANAND
PRAKASH
2025.03.25 Page 1 of 18
10:06:21+05'30'
DUBEY
2
3. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Umaraon Singh, Dob -
10.01.1972, Occupation - District Opium Officer, Partapgarh
II Division, Partapgarh, O/o the District Opium Officer, R/o
Barabag Colony, Mandsaur Road, Partapgarh - 312605.
4. Mukesh Khatri, S/o Shri M.K. Khatri, DoB 12.02.1972,
Occupation - Superintendent, O/o the Dy. Narcotics
Commissioner, Kota, R/o B-304, Ashirwad Gokul, behind
Truck Union, Anantpura, Kota - 324010.
5. Jagdish Mawal, S/o Shri Mohanlal Mawal, DoB - 28.12.1975,
Occupation - District Opium Officer, Chittorgarh Ist Division,
R/o Q. No. 3, T-IV, Narcotics Colony, Mahaveer Nagar III,
Kota.
6. Niranjan Guru, S/o Late Shri Mukund Guru, DoB
01.05.1967, Occupation - District Opium Officer, Jhalawar,
Rajasthan, R/o 32, Roop Nagar Colony, Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
7. Smita Joshi, W/o Shri Nishant Joshi, DoB 25.04.1975,
Occupation - Superintendent, O/o the Dy. Narcotics
Commissioner, Kota, Mahaveer Nagar I, Kota.
8. Sanjay Kumar Singh - I, S/o Shri Sudama Prasad, DoB -
10.10.1969, Occupation - District Opium Officer, R/o D-12,
R.K. Colony, Bhilwara (Raj).
9. Ram Chandra Saha, S/o Kali Pada Saha, DoB - 06.01.1961,
Occupation - District Opium Officer, Chittorgarh III Div.
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, R/o H. No. 7-F-4, Mahaveer Nagar III,
Kota - 324005.
10. Anant Prasad Choudhary, S/o Shri B.L. Mahto, DoB -
13.09.1972, Occupation - District Opium Officer, Chittorgarh
III Div. Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, R/o Q. No. 2, T-3, Narcotics
Colony, Kirkhedha, Chittorgarh - 312001.
...........Applicants
Versus
ANAND
PRAKASH
2025.03.25 Page 2 of 18
10:06:21+05'30'
DUBEY
3
1. Union of India through its Revenue Secretary, Govt. of India,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,
Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Ministry
of Finance, Department of Revenue, 19 Mall Road, Morar, Gwalior -
474006 (M.P). ..........Respondents
Original Application No. 416 of 2021
1. Chandra Shekhar Prasad, DoB - 29.09.1968, Occupation -
Superintendent, Narcotics Colony, Q. No. 1, Type III,
Barabanki - 225001.
2. Lalaram Dinkar, DoB 01.06.1971, Occupation-
Superintendent, S/o Shri Lalta Prasad, B-63, Shantipuram,
Sanjay Nagar, Bareilly.
3. Dharmendra Kumar Soti, S/o Late Shri Maharaj Kishore Soti,
DoB - 30.12.1972, Occupation - Superintendent, O/o the Dy.
Narcotics Commissioner, Lucknow, R/o 403/219, Katra Bizen
Beg, Lucknow - 226003.
4. D.S. Singh, S/o Late Punit Singh, DoB 21.09.1971,
Occupation - Superintendent, O/o Dy. Narcotics
Commissioner, Lucknow, R/o H. No. 205, Sector 10A,
Vasundhara, Ghaziabad (U.P).
5. Ram Mehar Singh, S/o Late Shri Surat Singh, DoB-
03.04.1959, Occupation - Superintendent (Retd), O/o
Superintendent (P), P&I Cell, Bareilly.
6. Mahavir Singh, DoB - 14.06.1959, 27/3A, Badrinath Colony,
Sainik Nagar, Rajpur Chungi, Agra (U.P) - 282001.
.........Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through its Revenue Secretary, Govt. of India,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001.
ANAND
PRAKASH
2025.03.25 Page 3 of 18
10:06:21+05'30'
DUBEY
4
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,
Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Ministry
of Finance, Department of Revenue, 19 Mall Road, Morar, Gwalior -
474006 (M.P).. ...........Respondents
AND
Original Application No. 565 of 2021
1. Onkar Mishra, S/o Late Shri S.P. Mishra, DoB 05.05.1961,
Occupation : Superintendent (Retired) from office of the
Narcotics Commissioner, R/o R-28, Bankers Colony, near
Saidham Mandir, Gwalior - 474011 (M.P)
2. Dilip Kumar Devsthali, S/o Shri Dinkar Ramchandra
Devsthali, DoB - 26.01.1958, Occupation - Superintendent
(Retd), P & I Cell, Udaipur, Cadre Controlling Authority,
Narcotics Commissioner, Gwalior, R/o Flat No. 304, 3rd Floor,
Tansen Apartment, Loco Road, Gwalior - 474002.
3. Vasant Krishna Gokhle, S/o Shri Krishna Gokhle, DoB
14.01.1953, Occupation - Superintendent (Retd), D.N.C
Office, Neemuch (M.P), R/o Century Park Apartment, Flat No.
C-208, Near Gamle Vali Pulia, AB Road, Rajendra Nagar,
Indore - 452012.
4. Legy Thomas, S/o Shri ThomasMathew, DoB - 04.10.1971,
Occupation - Superintendent, Office of the Narcotics
Commissioner, Gwalior, Currently on deputation to
Enforcement Directorate, Cochin Zonal Unit, A.K Seshadri
Road, Cochin - 682011.
5. Bhaskar Kher, S/o Late Shri Mukund Prabhakar Kher, DoB -
05.05.1954, Occupation - Inspector (Retd) from Office of the
CCF, Gwalior, R/o 43, Radhakrishan Vihar, Lele Ka Bagh,
Lele Road, Bhaskhar Kher, Lohagarh, Lashkar, Gwalior -
474001 (MP).
6. Tushar Kanti Ghosh, S/o Late Shri Tarun Kumar Ghosh, DoB
- 01.05.1953, Occupation - Inspector (Retd.) from Office of
ANAND
PRAKASH
2025.03.25 Page 4 of 18
10:06:21+05'30'
DUBEY
5
the CCF, Delhi, R/o Jadu Nath Pal Lane (behind Distt.
Library), Krishna Nagar, District - Nadia, West Bengal -
741103.
7. J.P. Sagaria, S/o Late Shri C.L. Sagaria, DoB - 16.07.1962,
Occupation - Inspector, Office of the Narcotics Commissioner,
19, the Mall, Morar, Gwalior - 474006 (M.P.).
........Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through its Revenue Secretary, Govt. of India,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,
Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, 19 Mall Road,
Morar, Gwalior - 474006 (M.P). ...........Respondents
Advocate for the applicants: Shri Akash Choudhury
Advocate for the respondents: Shri Surendra Prtap Singh
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-
As the subject matter in all the connected O.As are one and the same and the relief/s sought by the applicants are similar, merely having different dates, posts and places would not in any way disturb the ultimate finding to be given by this Tribunal. Therefore, as requested by the counsel for both sides, all the O.As have been heard together and decided by a common order. For ready reference the facts of the O.A No. 1004/2021 are taken.
ANAND PRAKASH 2025.03.25 Page 5 of 18 10:06:21+05'30' DUBEY 6
2. By means of the instant original applications filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicants have prayed for a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of G.P. of Rs.5400/- on non-functional basis with effect from the date they completed four years regular service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800/- in pursuance of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed by this Tribunal in bunch of Original Applications i.e. O.A. No. 24/2015 and other connected matters. Prayer has also been made to grant the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- to the retired officers with effect from the date they completed four years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800 (from the date of entitlement) by paying them arrears of pay and revising their retiral dues and PPO accordingly.
3. The applicants who were working in the respondents' department on the different posts, were granted the benefit of second financial upgradation in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-. The Government of India issued a Resolution dated 29.08.2008 accepting the recommendation of the Pay Commission inter alia specifying that the Group-B officers of Department of Post, Revenue etc. will be granted Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- in PB-2 on non-functional basis after rendering four years regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4,800/-.
ANAND PRAKASH 2025.03.25 Page 6 of 18 10:06:21+05'30' DUBEY 7
4. The applicants submit that the issue regarding grant of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- after completion of four years service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-, was agitated by one similarly placed employee M. Subramaniam Vs. U.O.I & Ors before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No.13225/2010 and the Hon'ble High Court has clarified as to how the four years period is to be counted for the purpose of granting non- functional upgradation to Group-B Officer. The same principle has also been followed by the various Benches of this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the applicants also cited an order dated 13.09.2018 passed by the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 200/24/2015 - Salman Imteyaz Hussaini & Others Vs. U.O.I & Ors with connected OAs (Annexure A-4) and submits that since the applicants are also similarly placed employees, they have legitimate right to get Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- and the applicants are feeling aggrieved with the action of the respondents in denial of the benefit of up-gradation in the grade pay of 5,400/- have filed the instant original application.
5. In their reply, the respondents have stated that as per Central Board of Excise & Customs clarification dated 11.02.2009, non-functional upgradation to the grade pay of Rs. 5400/- in Pay Band-2 can be given on completion of 4 years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800/- in ANAND PRAKASH 2025.03.25 Page 7 of 18 10:06:21+05'30' DUBEY 8 PB-2 (pre-revised scale of Rs. 7500-12000) after regular promotion and not on account of financial upgradation due to ACP/MACP. It has also been stated by the respondents that the judgment passed in M. Subramaniam (supra) is a judgment in personam and the Department of Expenditure has clarified that the same cannot be implemented in case of similarly placed officers.
6. The case came up for final hearing on 19.02.2025. Shri Akash Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Surendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents were present and both were heard. We have carefully gone through the entire record, and considered the rival contentions.
7. It is noted that the issue involved in the present original applications have already been settled in number of cases. This Tribunal in the order dated 23.11.2022 passed in OA No. 200/758/2022 - Surendra Singh and others Vs. U.O.I & Ors while granting similar relief taking into consideration the order dated 13.09.2018 passed in OA No. 200/24/2015 has observed the following: -
ANAND PRAKASH 2025.03.25 Page 8 of 18 10:06:21+05'30' DUBEY 9 "7. The issue involved in this Original Application is no longer res integra as the same has already been decided by this Tribunal in Original Application No.200/24/2015 - Salman Imteyaz Hussaini and others Vs. U.O.I & Ors and other connected OAs vide order dated 13.09.2018. Recently, this Tribunal in Original Application No.200/441/2021 and other connected OAs, while placing reliance on the order passed by the Principal Bench in OA No.3768/2018 dated 06.01.2022, has held that the judgment of M. Subramaniam (supra) is to be complied in rem and not to be treated as in personam. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 11.02.2022 passed in Original Application No.200/441/2021 & other connected OAs, read as under:
"8. It is undisputed fact that the issue regarding grant of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 on non-functional basis after rendering four years regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4,800/- to the Group-B officers of Department of Post, Revenue etc, has already been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in M. Subramaniam (supra). This Tribunal has also decided the similar issue in Original Application No.24/2015 and other connected Original Applications vide order dated 13.09.2018 in the case of Salman Imteyaz Hussaini & others vs. Union of India & others.
The only question for consideration is whether the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in M. Subramaniam (supra) is a judgment in rem or in personam.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the orders passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.3768/2018 decided on 06.01.2022 (Ravi Dutt Shankar & others vs. Union of India & others), which has been filed along with MA No.200/83/2022, wherein it has been held that the judgment of M. Subramaniam (supra) is to be complied in rem and not to be treated as in personam. The relevant pargraphs of the judgment are reproduced below:
"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. ANAND PRAKASH 2025.03.25 Page 9 of 18 10:06:21+05'30' DUBEY 10 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 nonfinancial 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 ANAND PRAKASH 2025.03.25 Page 10 of 18 10:06:21+05'30' DUBEY 11 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 nonfunctional 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 (prerevised), since the petitioner admittedly completed 4 year period in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 as 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 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 ANAND PRAKASH 2025.03.25 Page 11 of 18 10:06:21+05'30' DUBEY 12 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 A15).
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, 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 ANAND PRAKASH 2025.03.25 Page 12 of 18 10:06:21+05'30' DUBEY 13 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."
8. Thereafter, 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 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.
9. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it is clear that there is hardly any further scope for additional adjudication in this regard. In fact, the action of the respondents in denying the benefits of aforesaid judgments inspite of clear observation by the Court that the judgment of M. Subramaniam (supra) is to be ANAND PRAKASH 2025.03.25 Page 13 of 18 10:06:21+05'30' DUBEY 14 complied in rem and not to be treated as in personam, is in violation of the National Litigation Policy, the aim of which itself is to transform Government into an efficient and responsible litigant. The respondents, by refusing to fully acknowledge the impact of the decision in the judgment confirmed by the Apex Court seem to be paving the way for multiplicity of litigation which by itself is not a desirable state of affairs particularly when the premier departments are involved.
10. It is also to be noted here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (SLP No.77457/2017) in the case of Government of NCT & Anr. vs. Somvir Rana & Ors., has clearly observed that "once the question, in principle, has been settled, it is only appropriate on the part of the Government of India to issue a Circular so that it will save the time of the court and the Administrative Departments, apart from avoiding unnecessary and avoidable expenditure".
11. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhoop v. Matadin Bhardwaj, (1991) 2 SCC 128 and Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee v. Union of India, (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 363 have clearly held that the mistake or delay on the part of the department should not be permitted to recoil on the party.
ANAND PRAKASH 2025.03.25 Page 14 of 18 10:06:21+05'30' DUBEY 15
12. In this matter, we would also agree that the issue has attained its finality. The respondents could consider whether they could issue a general circular in this regard instead of just providing the non-functional upgradation only to those officers who approach judicial forums. By now this could be considered a 'judgment in rem' rather than a 'judgment in persona'. We urge the department concerned to consider the matter in its entirety and examine whether a clarification can be issued in this regard allowing the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB2 on non-functional basis to all those who have completed 4 years in PB2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- irrespective of how they have reached the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-.
13. We would also like to observe that it is settled law that it is not necessary for every employee to approach the court of law for the benefit which has already been granted by the court of law in the case of similarly situated employee whether he was party or not. The benefit can be extended if both are similarly situated persons and the matter had been decided on merits. In the case of State of Karnataka and others Vs. C. Lalitha reported in 2006 (2) Supreme Court Cases 747, in para 29, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held as under: -
ANAND PRAKASH 2025.03.25 Page 15 of 18 10:06:21+05'30' DUBEY 16 "29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently.".
14. Further, the applicants have also made out a case of discrimination amongst the equals. It is settled law that the concept of equal protection of laws postulates in the application of the same laws alike and without discrimination to all persons similarly situated. It denotes equality of treatment in equal circumstances. It implies that among equals, the law should be equal and equally administered and the like should be treated alike without any discrimination. In the celebrated case of Smt. Menka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another, 1978 AIR 597, in para 21, Article 14 has been interpreted in the following manner.
"21. NOW, the question immediately arises as to what is the requirement of Article 14: what is the content and reach of the great equalising principle enunciated in this article? There can be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the Constitution. It is indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic. And, therefore, it must not be subjected to a narrow, pedantic or lexicographic. approach.' No attempt should be made to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions ANAND PRAKASH 2025.03.25 Page 16 of 18 10:06:21+05'30' DUBEY 17 and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits. We must reiterated here what was pointed out by the majority in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil .Nadu that "from a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic, while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore, violative of Article 14". Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non arbitrariness, pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be "right and just and fair" and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied."
15. In view of the aforesaid, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicants of these cases cannot be treated differently to those who had earlier approached the court and they were granted the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- on non-functional basis with effect from the date they had completed four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- from the date they were granted A.C.P /M.A.C.P. The instant case is fully covered by the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by the orders passed by this Tribunal referred in the preceding paragraphs and the applicants are also ANAND PRAKASH 2025.03.25 Page 17 of 18 10:06:21+05'30' DUBEY 18 entitled for the same benefit as has been granted to the applicants therein.
16. Resultantly, this Original Application is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- to the applicants on non-functional basis with effect from the date they had completed four years of regular service from the date they were granted A.C.P /M.A.C.P in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- with all consequential benefits. In case, any of the applicants has already been superannuated, the respondents shall grant the benefit of Grade Pay Rs. 5400/- to them also from the date of entitlement with arrears of pay and revise their retiral dues as well as PPO accordingly. The respondents are directed to comply with the above directions within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. The registry is directed to place of copy of this order in all connected OAs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Anand...
ANAND
PRAKASH
2025.03.25 Page 18 of 18
10:06:21+05'30'
DUBEY