Competent authority must verify comparable claims and extend precedent-based benefits to similarly situated employees.

The applicant, Shri Aloke Kumar Chatterjee, serving as Superintendent in the CGST Kolkata South Commissionerate, sought grant of Non-Functional Grade Pay (NFGP) of ₹5,400 in PB-2 upon completion of four years in the pre-revised pay scale carrying Grade Pay of ₹4,800, along with consequential benefits and arrears.

He relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 6 September 2010, orders of the Supreme Court dated 10 October 2017 and 23 August 2018, and subsequent departmental communications and establishment orders concerning similarly situated officers.

The applicant’s representation was rejected by communication dated 23 June 2026, on the ground that implementation required a specific order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and Board clearance under the departmental instructions dated 7 April 2021.

During the hearing, the applicant relied on the Tribunal’s decision in O.A. No. 540/2026 dated 18 May 2026 and requested that his case be considered in the light of that decision.

Whether the applicant’s claim for grant of NFGP of ₹5,400 upon completion of four years in Grade Pay of ₹4,800 should be considered in the light of the Tribunal’s decision in O.A. No. 540/2026 dated 18 May 2026

Whether the rejection communication dated 23 June 2026 should be quashed and the applicant granted the claimed benefit

Whether the competent respondent authority should verify whether the applicant is similarly situated to the applicants in O.A. No. 540/2026 and extend the benefit if so found

The application was instituted under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which enables an aggrieved government servant to seek adjudication of service-related grievances before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a claim for service benefits may be considered on the basis of an earlier decision concerning similarly situated employees, subject to verification of the claimant’s eligibility and factual parity under the applicable rules.

The applicant also relied on the Madras High Court judgment dated 6 September 2010, the Supreme Court orders dated 10 October 2017 and 23 August 2018, and departmental communications dated 22 October 2019 and 27 July 2020; however, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the substantive legal merits of those authorities in the present order.

The Tribunal noted that the department’s communication dated 23 June 2026 had declined to implement the applicant’s claim without a specific Tribunal order and Board clearance.

Since the applicant asserted that he was similarly situated to the successful applicants in O.A. No. 540/2026, and the respondents consented to consideration of his case after verification, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to direct the competent authority to examine the claim rather than decide the entitlement conclusively at the admission stage.

The authority was required to treat the present application as part of the earlier decision, verify the applicant’s service particulars and eligibility, and extend the benefit only if he was found to be similarly circumstanced under the applicable rules.

The Tribunal therefore avoided making any determination on the substantive entitlement to the Grade Pay.

Respondent No. 3, namely the Principal Chief Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata, or any other competent authority, was directed to consider the applicant’s case in the light of the judgment dated 18 May 2026 in O.A. No. 540/2026, verify whether he was similarly situated, and extend the corresponding benefit if eligible, within 120 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claim.

There was no order as to costs.