Murli Prasad vs M/O FINANCE, D/O REVENUE

(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench Allahabad

Original Application No. 1015/2026
th
This, the 08 Day of October, 2026
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)

Murli Prasad, a/a 67 years, S/o Shri Ram Sanehi, R/o Village Hainsi
Jaichand, Post Hainsi Parji, Mandhata, Pratapgarh, retired as
Administrative Officer II from the office of Chief Commissioner Income
Tax, 38 Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Prayagraj

....Applicant

By Advocates: Shri Jaswant Singh

Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, New
Delhi.
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
3. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block,
Connaught Circus Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001.
4. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) (UP East),
Aayakar Bhawan 5, Ashok Marg, Lucknow 226001
5. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 38 MG
Marg, Civil Lines, Prayagraj .
6. The Zonal Accounts Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, 38 MG Marg, Civil
Lines, Prayagraj …Respondents

By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan

O R D E R

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J):-

Heard Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant
and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents and
with the consent of the parties, the matter is being disposed of at the
admission stage itself.
2. The instant Original Application, under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has been filed by the applicant
seeking following reliefs:
“a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that
the Applicant is entitled to be placed and has pay fixed in the Non-
Page 1 of 6

Functional Grade (NFG) Pay Scale of Rs. 9300-34800 in Pay
Band-II, with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-, with all consequential
benefits , with effect from the dates that he had completed four
years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/-(or
equivalent pay scale).

b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to issue a suitable time-
bound order direction to the respondents to release the entire
arrears of salary and or other emoluments payable to the Applicant
as a consequence of the aforesaid grant of the Grade Pay of Rs.
5400/- to him from the due date, along with interest at such rates as
might be found just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances
of the case.

c) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to grant such other relief,
as the Applicant might be found entitled to in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

d) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to award the costs of this
Original Application in favour of the Applicants, throughout.”

3. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that the
applicant while working as Administrative Officer-II superannuated from
services from the office of respondent after attaining the age of
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
superannuation. During the service period, he was granted the benefit of
rd
3 MACP vide order dated 03.09.2013 w.e.f. 07.09.2012 in the pay scale
of Rs.9300-34800+4800 Grade Pay and as such, he ought to have been
entitled for the grant of Non Functional Grade after completion of four
years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs.4800/-.
th
3.1 Prior to implementation of recommendations made by the 6
Pay Commission and formulation of the Revised Pay Rules, 2008, the
cadre of Inspectors in the CBIC was in the pre-revised pay scale of
Rs.6500-10500 and the cadre of Superintendent was in the pre-revised
th
pay scale of Rs.7500-10500. However, after implementation of 6 Pay
Commission, the Inspectors were placed in the Pay Band-II carrying the
scale of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs 4600/- and
Superintendents were placed in Pay Band-II carrying the scale of Rs.
9300-34800/- in Rs. 4800/- Grade Pay.
3.2 Under the recommendations of the 6th CPC, the erstwhile
Annual Career Progression Scheme (ACP) of granting two financial up-
gradations in the 12th and 24th years of service were replaced by the
Modified Career Progression Scheme (MACP) wherein the employees
became entitled to receive three financial up-gradations in the 10th, 20th
and 30th years of their service.
Page 2 of 6

3.3 The Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India vide a letter dated
21.11.2008 issued the following clarification:-
3. The Department of Expenditure have now clarified that the 4
year period is to be counted w.e.f. the date on which an officer is
placed in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 (pre-revised). Thus, if an
officer has completed 4 years on 1.1.2006 or earlier, he will be
given the non-functional upgradation w.e.f. 1.1.2006. If the officer
completes 4 years on a date after 1.1.2006, he will be given non-
functional upgradation from such date on which he completes 4
years in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 (pre-revised) .
3.4 However, the CBIC vide letter dated 11.02.2009 issued a
further clarification on the subject stating therein that non functional up-
gradation to the grade pay of Rs.5400/- in the pay Band PB-2 can be
given on completion of four years of regular service in the grade pay of
Rs.4800/- in PB-2 (pre-revised scale of Rs. 7500-12000) after regular
promotion and not on account of financial up-gradation due to ACP.
3.5 The aforesaid letter was challenged before Hon'ble Madras
High Court by means of Writ Petition No. 13225/2010 , M Subramaniam
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
vs Union of India, wherein vide order dated 06.09.2010 in the Hon’ble
High Court Madras directed the respondents to extend the benefit of
Grade Pay of Rs 5400/-to the petitioner w.e.f. the date he had completed
four years of regular service in the pre-revised scale of 6500-10500/7500-
12,000 (corresponding to Grade Pay of Rs 4800), as per Resolution dated
29.08.2008 of the Finance Department.
3.6 The Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court filed by
Union of India against the aforesaid order of Hon’ble Madras High Court,
was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 10.10.2017
and a Review Petition thereupon was also dismissed vide order dated
23.08.2018.
3.7 The applicant has completed four years of regular service in
the grade pay of Rs.4800/- after grant of MACP w.e.f. 07.09.2016,
however, he had not been granted the benefit of Non-Functional Grade
(hereinafter referred as ‘NFG’) in the grade pay of Rs.5400/- on
completion of four years of regular service in Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in
terms of Extraordinary Gazette No.1/1/2008-1C issued by Ministry of
Finance (Department of Expenditure), Government of India dated
29.08.2008. The applicant had also filed representation before the
respondents, requesting therein to grant the benefit of Non-Functional
Page 3 of 6

Grade in Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- with all consequential benefits, but no
heed was paid. Hence, this original application has been filed.
4. Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the issue involved in this Original Application regarding for
grant of Non-Functional Grade (NFG) Pay Scale of Rs.9300-34800/- in
Pay Band-II with grade of Rs.5400 w.e.f the date, an employee had
completed four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- is
set at rest by the Madras High Court in case of M. Subramaniam Vs.
Union of India , which has been upheld by the Apex Court and as such,
this Original Application may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
judgment and order passed by the Madras High Court as well as order
dated 09.01.2020 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application
No.1005/2019 (Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.).
5. Per contra, Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for
the respondents seeks time to file instructions in the matter. However, he
does not dispute that the issue involved in this O.A. has already been
decided by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1005/2019, decided on 09.01.2020 as
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
well as High Court of Madras in W.P. No.13225/2010, decided on
06.09.2010, which was affirmed by the Apex Court.
06. We have considered the submissions raised by the learned
counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
07. From perusal of the records, it reflects that vide order dated
09.09.2026 and 29.09.2026, learned counsel for the respondents was
granted time either to seek instructions in the matter, but till date neither
any counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents nor any instruction
has been received.
8. Since the controversy has already been decided upto the
Apex Court, no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping this Original
Application pending and calling for counter affidavit.
9. It appears that the issue involved in this Original Application
regarding for grant of Non-Functional Grade (NFG) Pay Scale of Rs.9300-
34800/- in Pay Band-II with grade of Rs.5400 w.e.f the dates an employee
had completed four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-
is set at rest by the Madras High Court in case of M. Subramaniam Vs.
Union of India , which has been upheld by the Apex Court.
Page 4 of 6

10. Further, it is quite outrageous that the respondents are
ignoring the fact that apart from this Bench, other Benches of this Tribunal
have repeatedly directed compliance of the said judgement of M.
Subramaniam (supra) by holding that the judgements are to be complied
in rem and not to be treated as in personam . Hence, it would be in fitness
of things if the respondents in the present OA also consider the case of
the applicants and meet out the same treatment as has been given to
their other counter parts all over India through judgements of the various
Tribunal benches in light of M. Subramaniam (supra) . It would be
pertinent to note that pay fixation matters, like the one under
consideration are governed by uniform policies of the Government and so
any judgments on these matters by their very nature are always
judgments in rem and cannot be interpreted as judgments in personam by
the complying authority.
11. Further, similar observation has also been made by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Original Application No.714/2020 vide
its order dated 03.12.2020 . Relevant para of the said order is quoted as
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
under for ready reference :-
10. It is quite outrageous that the respondents are ignoring the fact
that apart from this Bench, other Benches of this Tribunal have
repeatedly directed compliance of the said judgement of M.
Subramaniam (supra) by holding that the judgements are to be
complied in rem and not to be treated as in personam. Hence, it
would be in fitness of things if the respondents in the present OA
also consider the case of the applicants and meet out the same
treatment as has been given to their other counter parts all over
India through judgements of the various Tribunal benches in light of
M. Subramaniam (supra). It would be pertinent to note that pay
fixation matters, like the one under consideration are governed by
uniform policies of the Government and so any judgments on these
matters by their very nature are always judgments in rem and
cannot be interpreted as judgments in personam by the complying
authority.
11. The respondents are accordingly directed to ensure that
the benefit of the judgment referred in the judgment passed by
this Tribunal on 09.01.2020 in O.A. No. 1005/2019 Pradeep
Kumar and others V. Union of India others, be also given to all
the persons in this OA as they are entitled to the same whether
they are retired or in service. This exercise is to be completed
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
xx xx xx
13. A copy of this order be also served on the Union Finance
Secretary by the Registry to consider issuing directions on
identical matters such as above for in rem consideration and
not in personam. This would avoid needless litigation in the
future.
Page 5 of 6

12. Recently, the Delhi High Court vide order dated
22.05.2026 passed in W.P. (C) No.7247/2026 ( Naveen Kumar Vs. UOI
& Ors.) while dealing with similar issue taking a series view and
observed that once the issue stands squarely covered by a judgment of
this Court, similarly situated employees ought not to be forced to
approach this Court individually for the same relief.
13. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid judicial pronouncements,
the respondents are directed to ensure that the benefit of the judgment
referred in the judgment passed by this Tribunal on 09.01.2020 in O.A.
No. 1005/2019 Pradeep Kumar and others V. Union of India others ,
be also given to applicant herein also as he is entitled to the same. Since
the applicant had already been superannuated from services, the
respondents are directed to release the entire arrears and fix the revise
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
pension accordingly. This exercise is to be completed within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
14. Resultantly, instant O.A. stands allowed.
15. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of accordingly. No order as
to costs.



(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
pm/RKM
Page 6 of 6