Competent authority directed to consider representation for upgraded pay scale in light of prior judgments.

The applicant, Ashok Kumar, sought the benefit of a landmark judgment by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A./2995/2024, which granted a revised pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- for technical staff.

The applicant contended that the respondents arbitrarily restricted the implementation of this revised pay scale to only the applicants in the previous case, instead of extending it to all similarly placed technical staff working on a regular basis at Dr. RML Hospital.

This restriction was argued to be legally unsustainable as the judicial determination regarding the 5th CPC pay scale for this technical cadre was a judgment in rem (a judgment intended to apply to an entire class of similarly situated employees).

The applicant further challenged the respondents' inaction and failure to decide upon his formal representation dated September 8, 2025.

Whether the respondents' action of restricting the benefit of an upgraded pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- (as per the 5th CPC recommendations and Government Resolution dated September 30, 1997) to only the applicants of a previous O.A., and not extending it to similarly placed technical staff like the applicant, is legally sustainable?

Whether the respondents' failure to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the applicant's representation dated September 8, 2025, constitutes an arbitrary and discriminatory denial of benefits related to pay scale upgradation for OT Assistants?

The Tribunal implicitly applied the principle of "judgment in rem," which holds that judicial determinations impacting a class of employees should be extended to all similarly situated individuals.

The Tribunal implicitly applied the principle that administrative authorities must consider and decide on representations by passing reasoned and speaking orders.

The case also references the 5th Central Pay Commission recommendations, the Government of India Resolution dated September 30, 1997, and subsequent revisions under the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commissions regarding pay scales.

The applicant contended that the previous judgments regarding the pay scale for OT Assistants were "jus in rem," meaning they should apply broadly to all similarly situated employees, and not just to the original petitioners.

The Tribunal, without expressing an opinion on the merits of this contention, recognized the applicant's right to have his pending representation addressed by the competent authority.

The applicant's counsel specifically requested that the competent authority consider the representation dated September 8, 2025, in light of previous orders in *Dharambir Singh Ranga & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.* (O.A./2995/2014, dated April 19, 2016) and *Nirmala Devi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.* (O.A./3903/2016, dated January 19, 2023).

This approach aligns with principles of natural justice and ensures due process in addressing the applicant's claim.

The respondents' counsel also fairly submitted that the representation would be considered in accordance with the law.

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation dated September 8, 2025 (Annexure A-11), in light of the orders passed by the Tribunal in *Dharambir Singh Ranga & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.* (O.A./2995/2014, dated April 19, 2016) and *Nirmala Devi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.* (O.A./3903/2016, dated January 19, 2023).

This reasoned and speaking order must be issued within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order and communicated to the applicant.

The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the respondents free to decide the representation in accordance with the law.