Bunching increments are not automatic and require identical revised pay fixation for consecutive pre-revised stages.

The applicants are retired Group ‘C’ railway employees from the Solapur and Hubli 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 or upgraded into common Grade Pays of Rs. 4200 or Rs. 4600 in Pay Band-2

The applicants contended that their pay as of 01.01.2006 was fixed incorrectly using standard fitment tables rather than applying "bunching benefits" under Rule 7 of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008

They sought a refixation of pay with bunching increments, relying on the Jaipur Bench decision in S.C. Sharma v. Union of India

The respondents argued that the applications were barred by limitation (a delay of 16 years) and that the pay fixation was correct as no two consecutive stages in the pre-revised scales resulted in the same stage in the revised pay band

Whether the applicants are entitled to bunching benefits in their pay fixation 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 of the Explanatory Memorandum.

Rule 7 of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (RBE 103/2008), which prescribes that pay in the revised pay band is determined by multiplying existing basic pay by a factor of 1.86

The first proviso to Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) defines "bunching" as occurring only when "pay at two or more consecutive stages in an existing scale gets fixed in the revised pay structure at the same stage in the pay band"

Note 2A and 2B of the Rules and subsequent clarifications in OM dated 13.10.2008 and RBE No. 172/2008, which specify that for upgraded or merged posts, the fitment tables corresponding to pre-revised scales must be used to determine pay in the pay band, to which the upgraded Grade Pay is added

The Tribunal clarified that "bunching" is not an automatic entitlement but a corrective measure to be applied only when fixation results in a senior and a junior (or two consecutive pay stages) drawing the exact same revised pay

The Tribunal analyzed Illustration 4A and 4B of the Rules, noting that Illustration 4A (which the applicants relied upon) was specific to a pre-revised pay of Rs. 3125, which happened to bunch with the lower stage of Rs. 3050 upon revision

The court observed that the applicants had incorrectly calculated bunching by simply adding 3% increments based on the number of years served, whereas the Rule requires actual "bunching" at a single stage in the revised pay band to trigger the benefit

The Tribunal further distinguished the S.C. Sharma precedent, noting that the Jaipur Bench did not have the benefit of the Ministry of Finance's clarifications (like RBE 172/2008), which mandated the use of fitment tables for determining pay in the pay band even for upgraded posts

In the lead case, the applicant's pay of Rs. 7700 was correctly fixed at Rs. 18,930 (including Grade Pay) as per the concordance table, with no evidence that this stage was "bunched" with another

Consequently, the claim for bunching increments was not "admissible" under the specific facts of their pay fixation

The Tribunal dismissed all the Original Applications, concluding that they lacked merit

All pending Miscellaneous Applications were also disposed of