Competent authority must decide pay-fixation representations through a reasoned order after verifying individual entitlement.

The applicants, serving or retired Group-B employees of the Income Tax Department, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking refixation of pay in the scale of Rs. 5,000–8,000 after completion of 12 years of service, without treating their promotion as Upper Division Clerks as disentitling them from the benefit, together with consequential upward placement under the MACP Scheme.

The applicants had submitted a representation dated 8 February 2023 before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, requesting consideration of their claims in light of the aforesaid decisions.

Their application for joint prosecution under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 was allowed.

The respondents did not object to consideration of the applicants’ claims, subject to verification of their individual entitlements.

1. Whether the applicants’ pending representations seeking pay refixation, upward placement under the MACP Scheme, and consequential benefits were required to be considered in light of the Kerala High Court judgment, its affirmation by the Supreme Court, and the Tribunal’s order dated 12 February 2026

2. Whether the Tribunal should itself adjudicate the applicants’ entitlement on merits or direct the competent departmental authority to examine the claims after individual verification

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to adjudicate service-related grievances.

It applied Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, permitting joint prosecution where the applicants have a common cause of action or substantially similar grievances.

The Tribunal directed consideration of the claims in accordance with the principles and benefits recognized in the Kerala High Court’s order dated 19 March 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 9486 of 2009, affirmed by the Supreme Court, and the Tribunal’s order dated 12 February 2026 in O.A. No. 200/2026, while preserving verification of each applicant’s individual entitlement.

Since the applicants had already submitted representations raising claims substantially covered by the cited judicial decisions, and the respondents had no objection to their consideration subject to verification, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to adopt a supervisory rather than an adjudicatory approach.

It therefore directed Respondent No. 3, or another competent authority, to treat the Original Application as part of the applicants’ representations and determine their claims in light of the governing judgments and order.

The authority was required to verify each applicant’s service particulars and entitlement before granting any benefit.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from deciding the merits and kept all issues open.

Respondent No. 3 or another competent authority was directed to consider the applicants’ pending representations, read with the Original Application, in light of the Kerala High Court’s order dated 19 March 2014, the Supreme Court’s affirmation thereof, and the Tribunal’s order dated 12 February 2026 in O.A. No. 200/2026.

A reasoned and speaking order was to be communicated to the applicants within 120 days from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

If, after individual verification, any applicant was found entitled to the claimed benefits, those benefits were to be extended within the same period.