Competent authority must decide revised pay-fixation representations by a reasoned order, without prejudging entitlement.

The 26 applicants, serving in various posts under the Central Goods and Services Tax, Customs and related departments, had their pay initially fixed after implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission.

They claimed that, before the Sixth Pay Commission, they were placed in the pre-revised pay scale of ₹6,500–10,500 and were subsequently granted Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of ₹4,200.

The Department of Expenditure issued Office Memorandum dated 13 November 2009, providing that posts existing in the pre-revised scale of ₹6,500–10,500 as on 1 January 2006, and granted the replacement Grade Pay of ₹4,200, were required to be placed in the revised pay structure corresponding to the pre-revised scale of ₹7,450–11,500 with Grade Pay of ₹4,600, with effect from 1 January 2006.

The applicants alleged that their pay had not been re-fixed on the basis of the revised minimum of ₹7,450. They claimed consequential arrears and other benefits, relying upon decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal, the Delhi High Court, and subsequent departmental clarifications.

They had submitted representations to the competent authorities, but those representations had not been finally decided.

At the hearing, the respondents did not oppose a direction requiring the competent authority to consider and decide the applicants’ representations in accordance with the applicable rules, instructions, and judicial decisions.

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations concerning re-fixation of pay under the Office Memorandum dated 13 November 2009?

Whether, while deciding the representations, the competent authority was required to examine the subsequent clarifications, relevant judicial decisions, and whether the applicants were similarly situated to employees who had already received the claimed benefit?

Whether the Tribunal should itself adjudicate the applicants’ entitlement to re-fixation of pay and consequential arrears at this stage?

The Tribunal applied the Office Memorandum dated 13 November 2009 issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, concerning placement of eligible posts in the revised pay structure corresponding to the pre-revised scale of ₹7,450–11,500 with Grade Pay of ₹4,600, with effect from 1 January 2006.

It also required consideration of the subsequent departmental clarifications and the judgments and orders of the High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal relied upon by the applicants.

The governing procedural principle was that a competent authority must consider a pending representation in accordance with law and issue a reasoned and speaking order.

Since the applicants sought consideration of their representations rather than an immediate final adjudication by the Tribunal, the Tribunal did not determine the substantive entitlement to pay re-fixation.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ grievance principally concerned non-consideration of their representations under the Office Memorandum dated 13 November 2009 and the cited judicial decisions.

As the respondents agreed that the competent authority could examine the claim under the applicable rules and instructions, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to remit the matter for administrative determination rather than decide the merits itself.

The competent authority was directed to assess the applicants’ eligibility, consider the relevant memorandum, clarifications, and precedents, and determine whether they were similarly situated to employees who had already obtained the benefit.

If such similarity and entitlement were established, the same benefit was to be extended in accordance with law.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations, along with the supporting documents, by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The authority was required to consider the Office Memorandum dated 13 November 2009, the relevant departmental clarifications, and the cited judicial decisions, and, if the applicants were found similarly situated, to extend the corresponding benefit to them.

The exercise was to be completed within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the order, with the decision communicated to the applicants forthwith.

No order was made as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were treated as disposed of.