Authorities must examine similarly situated employees’ claims under precedent and extend equivalent benefits upon established equivalence.

The 164 applicants, former police personnel, filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging condition (v) of Government Order No. 229-F dated 17 October 2014.

The applicants contended that the upgraded pay scales for Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors—₹4,500–7,000 and ₹5,000–8,000, respectively—were made prospective instead of being granted retrospectively from 1 January 1996, when the alleged pay anomaly arose.

They sought retrospective revision of pay, consequential monetary and pensionary benefits, and revised last pay certificates.

Their application to pursue the proceedings collectively under Rule 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, was allowed.

At the hearing, counsel for the applicants stated that they would be satisfied if the respondents were directed to consider their claims in light of the Tribunal’s decision dated 10 October 2025 in Ajit Singh & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Connected Matters, TAs Nos. 6839, 6757 and 6761 of 2020.

Whether the applicants were entitled to retrospective upgradation of the pay scales attached to the posts of Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspector with effect from 1 January 1996, along with consequential benefits?

Whether the respondents should examine the applicants’ claims in light of the Tribunal’s order dated 10 October 2025 in Ajit Singh & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Connected Matters and extend equivalent benefits if the applicants were found to be similarly situated?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved government employee to seek adjudication of service-related grievances before the Tribunal.

The applicants’ collective prosecution of the proceedings was permitted under Rule 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

The substantive claim arose from Government Order No. 229-F dated 17 October 2014, concerning revision of the pay scales of Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors.

The Tribunal also directed consideration of the applicants’ case in accordance with its earlier decision dated 10 October 2025 in Ajit Singh & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Connected Matters, applying the principle that similarly situated employees may receive the same benefits where factual and legal equivalence is established.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the validity of condition (v) of Government Order No. 229-F or determine whether retrospective pay fixation from 1 January 1996 was legally warranted.

Since the applicants limited their request at the hearing to consideration of their case under the Ajit Singh decision, the Tribunal adopted a limited, non-merits approach.

It directed the respondents to compare the applicants’ circumstances with those of the employees covered by the earlier decision and, if the applicants were found to be similarly situated and the equivalence established, to extend the same benefits to them.

Thus, the Tribunal preserved the respondents’ initial administrative determination while requiring it to be guided by the earlier binding or persuasive decision and completed within a specified timeframe.

The Original Application was disposed of at the admission stage without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The respondents were directed to examine the applicants’ claims in light of the Tribunal’s order dated 10 October 2025 in Ajit Singh & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Connected Matters and to extend the same benefits if the applicants were found to be similarly situated and the requisite equivalence established.

The exercise was to be completed within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.