CAT directs reconsideration of similar claims based on comparative analysis of service records and recruitment rules.

The applicant, Himanshu Sharma, was appointed as a Civilian Motor Driver on December 15, 2011, with a Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/-.

He was subsequently promoted to AFV Driver Grade-II in Pay Matrix Level 4 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- effective January 1, 2020.

The applicant submitted representations on February 6, 2021, and April 22, 2021, requesting a Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-, arguing that he was similarly situated to the applicants in OA No. 163/2007, which was decided on April 28, 2008.

The respondents, via a letter dated March 13, 2021, rejected this claim, stating that the order in OA No. 163/2007 was only applicable to the applicants in that specific OA.

Aggrieved by this rejection, the applicant filed the present OA.

Whether the impugned order dated July 7, 2021, refusing to grant the applicant a grade pay of Rs. 2800/-, should be set aside/quashed?

Whether the respondents should be directed to remove the anomaly and revise the pay scale of the applicant, paying all arrears, based on the decision in OA No. 163/2007 and subsequent decisions?

The Tribunal considered the principles of parity and the applicability of judicial pronouncements to similarly placed employees, citing the Apex Court judgment in *UOI & Others Vs DGOF Employees Association & Anr.*, Civil Appeal No. 1663/16, decided on November 9, 2023.

This judgment held that administrative authorities are obligated to grant similar benefits to similarly placed employees once a final judicial pronouncement is made.

The specific direction from the High Court in the cited Apex Court judgment was to rectify discrimination where historically similar employees were treated differently despite pay commission recommendations.

The applicant contended that the rejection of his claim for Rs. 2800/- Grade Pay was mechanical and non-speaking, asserting that he was similarly placed to the beneficiaries of OA No. 163/2007.

The counsel for the applicant cited the Apex Court ruling in *UOI & Others Vs DGOF Employees Association & Anr.* to support the argument that judicial pronouncements should extend benefits to similarly placed employees.

Conversely, the respondents argued that the order in OA No. 163/2007 was not *in rem* and only applied to the applicants therein.

Despite the Tribunal’s query to the applicant's counsel on how the present applicant is similarly situated to the beneficiaries of OA No. 163/2007, this basic query remained unanswered during the proceedings and in the subsequent written arguments.

The respondents also failed to provide written submissions clarifying why the applicant was *not* similarly placed.

Consequently, the Tribunal noted a lack of appropriate assistance from either party to take a considered view on the central question of similarity.

Instead, it directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant's prayer.

This reconsideration must involve preparing a comparative chart of the present applicant vis-à-vis a sample applicant from OA No. 163/2007, analyzing their service hierarchy and drawing an inference on whether the applicant is similarly placed.

The respondents are also required to justify their conclusion based on extant Recruitment Rules, Pay Commission recommendations, and DOP&T guidelines.

This exercise is to be completed within 12 weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order.