Bunching benefits are not automatic and require actual merging of consecutive pre-revised pay stages.

The applicants are retired railway employees from the South Western and Central Railway divisions

Following the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations, several pre-revised pay scales (Rs. 5000-8000, Rs. 5500-9000, and Rs. 6500-10500) were merged into common Grade Pays of Rs. 4200 and Rs. 4600

The applicants contended that their pay was incorrectly fixed using fitment tables applicable to normal replacements rather than following the bunching benefit provisions under Rule 7(1)(A) of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008

They argued that under Illustration 4A/4B of the Rules, they were entitled to additional increments to avoid "bunching" (where seniors and juniors end up at the same pay stage)

The respondents maintained that the pay fixation followed RBE No. 103/2008 and that bunching increments only apply if two or more consecutive stages in an existing scale result in the same revised pay, which did not occur in the applicants' cases

Whether the applicants are entitled to bunching benefits under Rule 7(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, read with Note 2A/2B and Illustrations 4A/4B appended thereto?

The court primarily applied Rule 7 of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (RBE 103/2008), which stipulates that revised pay is determined by multiplying existing basic pay by a factor of 1.86

The "bunching" proviso therein mandates that if two or more consecutive stages in an existing scale get fixed at the same stage in the revised pay band, one additional increment (3% of pay in the pay band) shall be given for every two stages so bunched

The court also relied on Note 2A (Upgradation) and Note 2B (Merger) of the Rules, read with OM dated 13.10.2008 and RBE No. 172/2008, which clarify that in cases of upgradation, the fitment table of the pre-revised scale must be used to determine the pay in the pay band, to which the upgraded Grade Pay is then added

The Tribunal clarified that "bunching" is an exceptional measure to alleviate instances where pay progression is unfairly neutralized by revision; it is not an automatic entitlement for every merged or upgraded scale

The court analyzed Illustration 4A and 4B of the Explanatory Memorandum, noting that Illustration 4A (which the applicants relied upon) was specifically applicable only when the pre-revised pay of Rs. 3125 bunched with the lower stage of Rs. 3050 after multiplication by 1.86

The Tribunal found that the applicants' calculations were misplaced because they sought to apply Illustration 4A as a universal rule rather than a specific example of admissibility

Regarding the precedent S.C. Sharma v. UOI, the Tribunal distinguished it, noting that the Jaipur Bench in that case was not informed of specific Government clarifications (RBE No. 172/2008) which mandated the use of fitment tables even for upgraded posts

The Tribunal concluded that since the applicants’ revised pay stages did not result in identical figures for consecutive pre-revised stages, no "bunching" occurred

The court ruled that the term "if admissible" in the Illustrations is pivotal and requires a factual overlap of pay stages, which was absent here

Consequently, the Original Applications were dismissed for lack of merit