Administrative Tribunal directs consideration of pay scale upgrade representations in light of precedents.

Seven applicants filed O.A. No. 759/2026 seeking pay fixation similar to a previous judgment

They challenged the respondents' decision to restrict the implementation of a revised pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-, as per the 5th CPC recommendations and the Government resolution dated September 30, 1997, only to certain technical staff at Dr. RML Hospital, rather than extending it to all similarly placed regular technical staff

The applicants contended that this restriction was discriminatory and contrary to a "judgment in rem" that should apply equally to all employees with identical recruitment rules and functional parity

They also challenged the respondents' inaction on their formal representations dated June 13, 2024, and a reminder dated July 11, 2024, concerning the upgraded pay scale

The applicants sought benefits including the upgraded pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 with effect from January 1, 1996, or their respective appointment dates, aligning with Operation Theatre (OT) Assistants, and the extension of judgments from O.A. No. 2995/2014 (Dharamvir Singh Ranga & Ors. vs. UOI) and O.A. No. 3903/2016 (Nirmala Devi & Ors. vs. UOI), along with consequential benefits

Whether the respondents are arbitrarily restricting the benefits of the revised pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- to only a segment of similarly placed technical staff, despite previous judicial determination being a "judgment in rem"

Whether the respondents' inaction and failure to decide upon the applicants' formal representations dated June 13, 2024, and July 11, 2024, regarding the upgraded pay scale, is legally sustainable

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice

It considered previous judgments in O.A./2995/2014 (Dharamvir Singh Ranga & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. dated April 19, 2016) and O.A./3903/2016 (Nirmala Devi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. dated January 19, 2023)

The core legal principle invoked by the applicants was that a judicial determination regarding the 5th CPC pay scale for a technical cadre should be considered a "judgment in rem," meaning it is intended to apply to all similarly situated employees and not just the successful litigants

The court, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, focused on the applicants' request for a direction to the competent authority to consider their pending representations

The applicants’ counsel submitted that they would be satisfied if the representations dated June 23, 2024, and July 10, 2024, were considered in light of the Tribunal's previous orders in Dharambir Singh Ranga & Ors. and Nirmala Devi & Ors.

The respondents' counsel fairly stated that these representations would be considered in accordance with the law

The Tribunal deemed it just and proper for the principles of natural justice to be met by directing the competent authority to consider and decide these representations

This approach bypassed a full adjudication on the substantive claim of discriminatory application of the "judgment in rem"

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations dated June 23, 2024, and July 10, 2024, in light of the orders passed in Dharambir Singh Ranga & Ors. (O.A./2995/2014 dated April 19, 2016) and Nirmala Devi & Ors. (O.A./3903/2016 dated January 19, 2023)

This decision is to be made by passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, and communicated to the applicants promptly

The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the respondents remained free to decide the representations in accordance with the law

M.A./977/2026 for joining together was allowed

No order was made as to costs