Smt Lakshmi Bhattacharjee vs M/O DEFENCE

Court
Central Administrative Tribunal

1

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
[Reserved]

Original Application No. 40/248/2024


Reserved on: 17.09.2026


Pronounced on: 14.10.2026

Coram:-

HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER



Between

Smt. Lakshmi Bhattacharjee,
Ex- Civilian Switch Board Operator,
Grade-I, otfice of the l5l Base Hospital,
C/o 99 APO, Basistha-781029,
Resident of Hill Avenue,
Near Dakhinpara, Binovanagar,
P.O- Binovanagar, Pin- 781018,
Kamrup (M), Assam.


…..Applicant


[By Advocate: Mr. M. Chanda, Ms. U. Dutta, Mr. K. Abhinaba]


-AND-

1. The Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary
to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi - 110001.

2. The Director General of Sigs 4(c),
General Staff Shakha,
Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (Army),
New Delhi - 110011.

3. The Director General of Sigs 4 (c),
OA No. 40/248/2024
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

2

General Staff Branch, Dte HQ,
New Delhi – 110011.

4. The Administrative Commandant,
Station Cell, HQ 51, S/A, Pin-900328,
C/o- 99 APO.

5. The Administrative Commandant,
Station Cell, HQ 101 Area,
Pin- 908101, C/o- 99 APO.


....Respondents

[By Advocate: Mr. S.K. Ghosh, Addl. CGSC ]

OA No. 40/248/2024
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

3

ORDER
PER R.S. DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The instant OA has been filed by the applicant praying for
the following relief(s):-
“8.1 That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to set aside
and quashed the impugned letter dated 20.05.2024
(Annexure- Al).
8.2 That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the
respondents to grant the benefit of financial upgradation
under the MACP scheme in terms of the judgment and
order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Hon'ble CAT,
Principal Bench, and also in the light of the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence, letter bearing No. 3(5)/2020-D(AF)
dated 03.03.2021, in the Grade Pay of 4200, 4600 and
4800 on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular
service under the MACP scheme as early as possible, by
way of re-fixing the pay and pensionary benefit to the
present applicant, who have already retired on
superannuation from service, with all consequential
benefit, including arrear monetary benefit.
8.3 Costs of the application.
8.4 Any other relief(s) to which the applicants are
entitled to, as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and
proper.”

2. This application is made against the impugned letter
dated 20.05.2024, whereby extension of benefit of judgment
and order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Learned C.A.T.,
Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 3204/2011 (Shri
Madhu Sudan and Others. -vs- Union of India and others) has
not been granted to the present applicant. The applicant is also
OA No. 40/248/2024
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

4

entitled for extension of the said benefit in the light of the
implementation of order dated 03.03.2021 issued by the Govt.
of India, Ministry of Defence bearing letter No. 3(5)12020-D(AF)
and therefore, applicant is praying for grant of financial
upgradation under MACP Scheme in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200,
Rs. 4600 and Rs. 4800 on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of
regular service in the cadre of CSBO Grade- II/CSBO Grade- I
with all consequential benefits including arrear monetary
benefits by way of re-fixation of pay and pensionary benefit in
the case of retired applicant in lieu of Time Bound Promotion
Scheme. Since, the applicant is similarly situated and serving
in the cadre of CSBO in the establishment of Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence, in North Eastern Region under the
Administrative Control of Director General of Sigs 4 (c), General
Staff Shakha, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (Army), New
Delhi. The counsel of the applicant issued lawyer's notice dated
29.04.2024 to the local administration for extension of the
benefit of judgment and order dated 26.10.2015 passed in O.A.
No. 3204/2011, since the present applicant is exactly a
similarly situated employee. However vide impugned
communication dated 20.05.2024 issued to the counsel of the
applicant, stating that the similar issue is sub-judice before the
OA No. 40/248/2024
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

5

Hon'ble Supreme Court; as such suitable action will be taken
up after outcome of the pending SLP. Finding no other
alternatives, the applicant is approaching before this Tribunal
praying for a direction upon the respondents for extension of
the benefit of judgment and order dated 26.10.2015 passed in
O.A. No. 3204/2011.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the
averments made in written statement and submitted that the
orders passed in OA No. 3204/2011 Sh. Madhu Sudan &
others Vs. Union of India & others which has travelled upto
Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be treated as precedent for the
reason that SLP preferred by the petitioners has been
dismissed "in limine" and does not lay down any law as
envisaged under Article 141 of the Constitution. In this context,
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as
Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of
India & others reported as (1989) 4 SCC 187 , wherein the
Hon'ble Court has held as under: –
"It as a well-settled principle of law that when a special
leave petition summarily dismissed under Article 136 of the
Constitution, by such dismissal this Court does not lay
down any law, as envisaged by Article 141 of the
Constitution, contended by the learned Attorney General. In
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 146
OA No. 40/248/2024
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

6

it has been held by this Court that the dismissal of special
leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not
justify any inference that, by necessary implication, the
contentions raised in the special leave petition on the merits
of the case have been rejected by the Supreme Court. It has
been further held that the effect of a non-speaking order of
dismissal of a special leave petition without anything more
indicating the grounds or reasons of its dismissal must, by
necessary implication, be taken to be that the Supreme
Court had decided only that it was not a fit case where
special leave petition should be granted. In Union of India v.
All India Services Pensioners' Association (1988) 2 SCC 580
this Court has given reasons for dismissing the special leave
petition. When such reasons are given, the decision
becomes one which attracts Article 141 of the Constitution
which provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court
shall be binding on all the courts within the territory of India.
It. therefore, follows that when no reason is qiven, but a
special leave petition is dismissed simpliciter, it cannot be
said that there has been a declaration of law by this Court
under Article 141 of the Constitution." (emphasis supplied).

Counsel also states that order passed in Sh. Madhu Sudan
case (supra) is based on equity (i.e. the relief having been
granted on basis of benefit given to Staff Car Drivers who are
entirely in a different cadre) and it is settled position of law that
in case of conflict between equity and law, law prevails.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has also filed rejoinder,
wherein he averred that the applicant was serving in the cadre
of CSBO in the establishment of Govt. of India, Ministry of
Defence, in North Eastern under the then, Administrative
Control of Director General of Sigs 4 (c) General Staff Shakha,
Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (Army), New Delhi.
OA No. 40/248/2024
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

7

Learned counsel for the applicant also states that, as per
similar facts and circumstances of this case, the applicant was
covered vide Judgement and Order dated 04.11.2025 passed
in O.A. No. 322/2021 by this Tribunal, the applicant herein,
being similarly situated, is also entitled to the same relief.

5. Heard the parties and perused the records.
6. The applicant was an Ex-Civilian Switch Board Operator,
Grade-I, who served in the establishment in Government of
India, Ministry of Defence. The applicant claims for the
implementation of financial upgradation under the MACP
Scheme in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200, 4600 & 4800 respectively
on completion of 10, 20 & 30 years of regular service in the
cadre of CSBO Grade- II/CSBO Grade- I with all consequential
benefits including arrear monetary benefits by way of re-
fixation of pay and pensionary benefits. He had also submitted
Representations[Annexures- A/7 & A/10(Colly)] seeking the
above relief. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 29.04.2024 was
also issued for looking into the matter of the applicant.
7. The applicant places reliance on the decision of Principal
Bench of this Tribunal rendered in O.A. No. 3204/2011 which,
after verification of the entire facts and circumstances had
OA No. 40/248/2024
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

8

allowed the O.A., directing the respondents to grant the
financial upgradation to the applicant therein in the Grade Pay
of Rs. 4200, 4600 & 4800 on completion of 10, 20 & 30 years
respectively. It seems that the matter was challenged before the
Hon’ble High Court unsuccessfully and thereafter, before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Thereafter, order of Principal
Bench of this Tribunal was implemented as would be evident
by Annexure-A/3. Further, the applicant’s case is also
supported by one Administrative Sanction Order dated
07.08.2026 issued by Director for Adjutant General for
implementation of Order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the
coordinate Bench of this Tribunal i.e. Chandigarh Bench in
O.A. No. 1095/2021, wherein the applicants had prayed for
grant of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in the
Grade Pay of Rs. 4200, 4600 & 4800 respectively on completion
of 10, 20 & 30 years of regular service in the cadre of CSBO
Grade- II/CSBO Grade- I.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and
the learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the
considered opinion that since similarly situated persons were
granted the benefit of financial upgradations, then, as to why
OA No. 40/248/2024
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

9

the applicant should not be extended the same benefit who is
on the same footing. Accordingly, we are inclined to dispose of
the present O.A. directing the competent authority among the
respondents to consider the claim of the applicant in the light
of the judgement relied hereinabove and communication
mentioned above and after satisfying that if the present
applicant is also placed on the same footing, similar benefits be
extended to them in accordance with law as expeditiously as
possible within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Order. Ordered accordingly.

9. The benefits due to them shall also be paid to them
within a period of two months thereafter with all consequential
benefits.

10. Accordingly, OA stands disposed of. Pending M.A.(s), if
any, also stand disposed of. No costs.



(MALLIKA ARYA) (R.S. DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SK/

OA No. 40/248/2024
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR