Competent Authority Directed to Reconsider Pay-Fixation Claims and Pass a Reasoned, Speaking Order

The 19 applicants are employees serving as T/Mates at the Central Ordnance Depot, Agra. They sought fixation of pay under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, in accordance with their option for fixation under Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(1) with effect from 1 July 2016, together with consequential benefits.

The applicants relied upon Ministry of Finance Office Memoranda dated 28 November 2019 and 15 April 2021, the latter allegedly providing a further opportunity to exercise the option for pay fixation within three months.

Although the applicants claimed to have exercised the option and forwarded their cases to the competent authority, their claims were rejected on the ground that the Chandigarh Bench’s decision in O.A. No. 1210 of 2024, decided on 23 March 2026, operated only in personam and not in rem. The applicants subsequently submitted representations in May 2026 and approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the applicants were entitled to pay fixation under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, pursuant to their option under FR 22(1)(a)(1) with effect from 1 July 2016?

Whether the applicants, being similarly situated employees, were entitled to consideration of their claims in light of the Chandigarh Bench’s judgment in O.A. No. 1210 of 2024 and the subsequent Office Memoranda?

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the merits of the applicants’ claims at the admission stage or direct consideration of a fresh representation by the competent authority?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved government servant to approach the Tribunal for redressal of service-related grievances.

The substantive claim was based on the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 and FR 22(1)(a)(1), concerning fixation of pay on exercise of the applicable option.

The governing procedural principle applied was that, where the relief sought is limited and the claim has not been examined by the competent authority in accordance with the relevant materials, the matter may be disposed of by directing consideration of a fresh representation and issuance of a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants claimed to be similarly situated to the employees who had obtained relief from the Chandigarh Bench and that their grievance concerned the same question of pay fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(1).

Since the respondents sought time to obtain instructions and the Tribunal considered the prayer limited in nature, it refrained from deciding the applicants’ entitlement on merits at the admission stage.

Instead, it required the applicants to submit a fresh representation supported by the relevant Office Memoranda and the Chandigarh Bench judgment. The competent authority was directed to examine the applicants’ individual claims in accordance with law and to pass a reasoned and speaking order, keeping in view the cited judgment and the facts of the applicants’ cases.

The Tribunal expressly left the questions of delay, laches, and the merits of the claim open for determination by the respondents.

The applicants were directed to submit a fresh representation, along with the relevant subsequent Office Memoranda and the Chandigarh Bench judgment in O.A. No. 1210 of 2024, within two weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order. The competent authority was directed to consider the representation in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from its receipt.

All issues, including delay, laches, and the substantive merits of the pay-fixation claim, were left open. No order was made as to costs.