Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Balbir Singh Sen vs Post Hp Circle on 6 November, 2025
1 (OA No. 359/2024)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
CIRCUIT BENCH AT SHIMLA
Reserved on: 25.09.2025
Pronounced on: 06.11.2025
OA No. 359/2024
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER(A)
Balbir Singh Sen S/o late Shri Umed Singh, Superintendent
Posts (Retd.), presently R/o Village Zoyra (Shamleeg), PO
Rampur Keonthal, Via Totu, District Shimla, HP-171011.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. M.L. Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Expenditure, North Block,
New Delhi.
2. Union of India, Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
3. The Chief Postmaster General, Himachal Pradesh
Circle, SDA Complex, Shimla-171009.
4. Director Accounts (Postal), Sundernagar, District
Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.
..............Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Nand Lal Thakur)
2025.11.25
NEERU DOUGALL 11:10:13
+05'30'
2 (OA No. 359/2024)
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking direction to the respondents to allow to the applicant GP of Rs. 4800/- in the Cadre of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices w.e.f. 03.04.2006 and Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in the same cadre on completion of four years i.e. from 04.04.2010 as per recommendations of the 6th CPC and directions of the Court/Tribunal.
2. The brief facts are that the applicant joined the Indian Postal Department on 27.02.1978 as a Postal Assistant in the HP Postal Circle and was promoted to Inspector of Post Offices through LDCE on 05.09.1990, then to Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (ASPOs) on 03.04.2006, and subsequently to PS Gr. B/Superintendent of Post Offices on 01.09.2011. Upon implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations with effect from 01.01.2006, the pay scales of Inspectors and ASPOs were placed in PB-2 (Rs. 9300-34800) with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- and Rs. 4800/- respectively. The applicant retired on 2025.11.25 NEERU DOUGALL 11:10:13 +05'30' 3 (OA No. 359/2024) 31.12.2016 from the post of Superintendent of Post Offices. Thereafter, he submitted a representation dated 29.12.2023 seeking grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- with effect from 03.04.2006 and Rs. 5400/- with effect from 03.04.2010 in the ASPOs cadre as per 6th CPC and judicial directions, along with pay fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(1) from 01.09.2011 on promotion to PS Gr. B. However, his representation was rejected on 18.01.2024 on the ground that he was not a party to the judgments relied upon.
3. The applicant took the following grounds in support of his claim as has been made in the Original Application :-
a) The applicant's claim for Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- w.e.f.
03.04.2006 and Rs.5400/- w.e.f. 03.04.2010 in the cadre of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices is based on the 6th CPC recommendations and judicial rulings holding that granting the same Pay Scale and Grade Pay to Inspectors of Post Offices (a feeder cadre) and Assistant Superintendents amounts to reverse discrimination.
b) The Hyderabad Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in All India Association of Inspectors & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 021/00506/2021, decided on 02.12.2021) held the decision to be in rem to prevent similarly placed persons from repeated litigation. Yet, despite this clear direction, similarly situated retirees like the applicant are still forced to seek relief individually.
c) The rejection of the applicant's claim merely because he was not a party to the said case is arbitrary and untenable in view of the judgment's in rem nature and the identical facts involved.
2025.11.25 NEERU DOUGALL 11:10:13 +05'30' 4 (OA No. 359/2024)
4. The respondents have filed a written statement and countered the claim made by the applicant.
5. It is submitted that that OA No. 506/2021 was filed before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench, seeking grant of Non- Functional Grade Pay (NFGP) of ₹5400 in PB-2 (₹9300- 34800) or Level-9 of the Pay Matrix after completion of four years of service in Grade Pay ₹4800 (Level-8). The Tribunal allowed the OA on 01.12.2021. Against this, the Department filed Writ Petition (WP) No. 43155/2022 before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, which was decided on 03.01.2023. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order but clarified that the relief was limited to the applicants before the Tribunal and not in rem (i.e., not applicable to all similarly situated employees).
6. Following the Telangana High Court's order dated 03.01.2023, the Department of Posts issued Office Memorandum (OM) No. 2-25/2019-PCC dated 19.06.2023, directing implementation of the Tribunal's order. The benefit was specifically extended to the three applicants in OA 506/2021 and to eligible members of the All India Association of Inspectors Posts and 2025.11.25 NEERU DOUGALL 11:10:13 +05'30' 5 (OA No. 359/2024) Assistant Superintendents of Post Offices (AIAIASP) as on 22.07.2021, the date of filing of the OA.
7. The Department confirmed that it had implemented the CAT Hyderabad's order dated 02.12.2021 after the Telangana High Court's judgment dated 03.01.2023. However, the present OA, filed by Shri Balbir Singh Sen (Retired SPOs), seeks Grade Pay Rs. 4800 in PB-2 from 03.04.2006 in the ASPOs cadre and Rs. 5400 as NFGP from 04.04.2010, which the Department argues is incorrect. His service particulars show promotion as Inspector of Posts (05.09.1990, GP Rs. 4600), as ASP (03.04.2006, GP Rs. 4600), as Superintendent (01.09.2011, GP Rs. 4800), and retirement (31.12.2016). The Department points out that ASPOs were granted GP Rs. 4600 till 31.12.2015, and the upgraded GP Rs. 4800 was introduced only from 01.01.2016 under the 7th CPC.
8. It is further contended that the Non-Functional Grade Pay of ₹5400 in PB-2 after four years is meant only for Group B officers holding the substantive post of Superintendent of Posts or equivalent, and not for those merely drawing Grade Pay ₹4800 through MACP. The 2025.11.25 NEERU DOUGALL 11:10:13 +05'30' 6 (OA No. 359/2024) applicant had already received GP ₹5400 from 01.09.2015 upon completing four years as Superintendent. Therefore, the Department asserts that Shri Sen's claim is not covered under OA No. 506/2021 or WP No. 43155/2022, as the relief therein was in personam and applicable only to specific members of AIAIASP as of 22.07.2021.
9. The Written Statement also explains the background of similar cases related to the grant of NFGP ₹5400 in the Department of Revenue. It mentions that while the CAT, Madras Bench initially denied the benefit in its order dated 19.04.2010, the Madras High Court later allowed it on 06.09.2010 due to ambiguous wording in the Department of Revenue's letter dated 21.11.2008, which was later clarified on 11.02.2009. Despite the Department of Expenditure's objection (UO Note dated 24.12.2010), the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP (10.10.2017) and Review Petition (23.08.2018). Consequently, the Department of Revenue implemented the order in the case of Shri M. Subramanian and similarly placed employees who obtained favorable judgments.
2025.11.25 NEERU DOUGALL 11:10:13 +05'30' 7 (OA No. 359/2024)
10. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating therein his stand as taken in the Original Application.
11. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
12. The main issue in this case is whether the applicant can claim Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800 from 03.04.2006 and Rs. 5,400 (Non-Functional Grade Pay) from 04.04.2010 in the cadre of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (ASPOs), based on the Hyderabad Bench's order in OA No. 506/2021.
13. In a pivotal ruling, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lt.
Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India & Others, Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022, decided on 10 December 2024, reaffirmed the settled principle that once a competent court or tribunal has declared the law or granted a benefit on a common issue, all other similarly situated individuals are entitled to the same relief without being compelled to initiate separate litigation. The Apex Court deprecated the administrative practice of extending the benefit of a judgment only to the petitioners before the court while denying it to others identically placed, observing that such conduct 2025.11.25 NEERU DOUGALL 11:10:13 +05'30' 8 (OA No. 359/2024) offends the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
14. The Court was dealing with the issue of grant of Permanent Commission to women officers in the Indian Army. The appellant, who was identically placed as those who had obtained relief earlier, was denied the same on the sole ground that she was not a party to the previous litigation. The Supreme Court held that this distinction was artificial and unconstitutional, since the right flowing from a declaration of law could not be restricted to a few individuals. The Government, once the law is settled, is bound to apply it uniformly to all similarly situated persons unless the judgment itself expressly limits its applicability to the parties before it or there are circumstances of delay, acquiescence or laches.
15. The Hon'ble Court emphasized that compelling each aggrieved employee to file an independent case not only burdens the judicial system but also perpetuates discrimination among those governed by the same rules. It categorically stated that "when the issue decided is one of general application and affects a homogeneous class, the benefit of the judicial pronouncement cannot 2025.11.25 NEERU DOUGALL 11:10:13 +05'30' 9 (OA No. 359/2024) be confined only to those who approached the Court." Consequently, the Court directed the Union of India to grant the same benefits to the appellant as were granted to her batchmates, together with all consequential advantages.
16. The Apex Court drew support from earlier binding precedents, including Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India (1985 2 SCC 648), K.C. Sharma v. Union of India (1997 6 SCC 721), and State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha (2006 2 SCC 747), which have consistently held that the benefit of a judgment involving identical facts and legal issues must be extended to all similarly placed employees without the need for repeated litigation. The Court reiterated that the administration is under a constitutional obligation to apply settled law equally and avoid discriminatory implementation of judicial orders.
17. The ratio of Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel applies with full force to the present case. The applicant stands identically situated with those who were granted Grade Pay ₹ 4800/- with effect from 03.04.2006 and Non-Functional Grade Pay ₹ 5400/- after completion of four years in the 2025.11.25 NEERU DOUGALL 11:10:13 +05'30' 10 (OA No. 359/2024) cadre of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad Bench in OA No. 506/2021 and the subsequent implementation through Department of Posts Office Memorandum No. 2-25/2019-PCC dated 19.06.2023. Denial of similar relief to the applicant merely because he was not a party to the said proceedings is arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the settled constitutional and judicial principles discussed above.
18. The principle that similarly placed applicants or employees must be extended similar benefits is a cornerstone of Indian service jurisprudence, stemming from the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle in numerous judgments. While there have been many benches that have ruled on this, a notable three-judge bench judgment that emphasized this very point is State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors (2014). In this case, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the normal rule is that merely because one person has approached the court and obtained a favorable order, others similarly situated 2025.11.25 NEERU DOUGALL 11:10:13 +05'30' 11 (OA No. 359/2024) should not be treated differently or denied the same benefits. In this judgement, the Court stated as under:
The benefit of a judgment is not confined only to the parties who approached the court, especially when the judgment involves a declaration of law or a systemic issue.
If the government/employer has given a particular relief to a set of employees, all identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending the same benefits to them.
Denying benefits to similarly placed individuals would amount to discrimination and a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The government cannot force every similarly placed person to approach the court individually to secure the same relief, as this would lead to undue hardship and unnecessary litigation.
19. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion and in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the binding decision of the Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad Bench, the present Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant to the applicant Grade Pay Rs. 4800/- in the cadre of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices with effect from 03.04.2006 and Non- Functional Grade Pay Rs. 5400/- on completion of four years, i.e. from 04.04.2010, together with pay fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(1) on promotion to PS Gr. B w.e.f. 01.09.2011 and all consequential monetary benefits. The arrears arising therefrom shall be computed and 2025.11.25 NEERU DOUGALL 11:10:13 +05'30' 12 (OA No. 359/2024) released to the applicant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
20. There shall be no order so as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*
2025.11.25
NEERU DOUGALL 11:10:13
+05'30'