Authorities must assess parity before extending MACP benefits granted to similarly situated CSBOs.

The applicant, a retired Civilian Switch Board Operator (CSBO), Grade-I, sought MACP financial upgradations carrying Grade Pays of ₹4,200, ₹4,600 and ₹4,800 on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service, respectively, with consequential pay and pensionary benefits.

She relied on the Principal Bench’s decision in Shri Madhu Sudan v. Union of India, O.A. No. 3204/2011, and a Ministry of Defence letter dated 3 March 2021.

The respondents declined her request, stating that a similar issue was pending before the Supreme Court.

The applicant also relied on decisions concerning similarly situated CSBO employees, including an order of the Tribunal’s Chandigarh Bench.

Whether the applicant was entitled to be considered for the same MACP financial-upgradation benefits granted to similarly situated CSBO employees.

Whether the Tribunal should direct grant of those benefits, or instead direct the respondents to consider the applicant’s claim subject to verification that she was similarly situated.

Under Article 141 of the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision declares binding law; a non-speaking dismissal of a special leave petition does not, by itself, declare law or establish that the Supreme Court rejected the merits of the case.

The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187, and the authorities discussed therein for this principle.

The Tribunal also considered the prior CAT decisions and the administrative sanction cited by the applicant as relevant material concerning the treatment of similarly situated CSBO employees.

It did not determine that the applicant was automatically entitled to the claimed upgradations; it directed that her entitlement be assessed in accordance with law after confirming whether she was on the same footing.

The Tribunal noted the applicant’s reliance on the Principal Bench decision, subsequent proceedings, and orders concerning other CSBO employees, including an administrative sanction for implementing a Chandigarh Bench order.

It also recorded the respondents’ contention that dismissal of the related SLP in limine did not make the earlier CAT decision binding under Article 141.

Rather than resolve entitlement outright, the Tribunal considered parity with the employees who had received the benefit and directed the competent authority to examine whether the applicant was similarly situated and, if so, extend the benefit in accordance with law.

Any benefits found due were to be paid within a further two months, with consequential benefits.

No costs were awarded.