Employees completing four years in Grade Pay ₹4,800 are entitled to non-functional Grade Pay ₹5,400 regardless of association membership.

The applicant, a Deputy Manager in the Department of Posts, sought the non-functional Grade Pay of ₹5,400 after completing four years of regular service in Grade Pay ₹4,800, which he had obtained under the MACP scheme.

He challenged the Department’s order dated 21 August 2023 denying the benefit, relying on his non-membership of the relevant Association as of 22 July 2021.

The Tribunal had initially allowed the application, but the Delhi High Court set that order aside and remanded the matter because the Tribunal had not explained why the applicant was factually and legally similarly situated to the beneficiaries of the cited decisions.

On reconsideration, the Tribunal addressed the applicant’s entitlement afresh.

1. Whether an employee who has completed four years of qualifying regular service in Grade Pay ₹4,800 in PB-2 is entitled to non-functional Grade Pay ₹5,400 under Clause 1(x)(e) of the Ministry of Finance Resolution dated 29 August 2008, including where Grade Pay ₹4,800 was reached through financial upgradation.

2. Whether the applicant’s non-membership of the Association could lawfully justify denying that pay benefit.

Clause 1(x)(e) of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure Resolution No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 29 August 2008 provides for non-functional Grade Pay ₹5,400 after four years of regular service in Grade Pay ₹4,800 in PB-2.

The Tribunal relied on M. Subramaniam v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. No. 13225/2010, for the principle that reaching Grade Pay ₹4,800 through financial upgradation does not, by itself, disentitle an employee from the higher non-functional grade.

It read the Telangana High Court’s decision in W.P. No. 43155/2022 as leaving the substantive benefit granted to the applicants before the Tribunal intact, while setting aside only the extension of relief in rem to persons not before it.

The Tribunal also referred to Union of India & Ors. v. Sunil Kumar Rai & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4105/2026, in support of the proposition that additional eligibility conditions should not be introduced where the applicable rule or recommendation does not impose them.

It held that eligibility for the benefit must turn on the governing service conditions, not Association membership.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim had to be assessed under Clause 1(x)(e), rather than by reference to his Association membership.

It concluded that the applicant’s route to Grade Pay ₹4,800 through financial upgradation did not itself defeat entitlement, and that the Telangana High Court’s limitation of relief in the earlier Association case did not negate the underlying benefit for an employee who independently met the applicable conditions.

Because non-membership was the stated distinguishing factor and the respondents had not shown that the pay-resolution conditions were otherwise inapplicable to the applicant, the Tribunal held that membership could not be imposed as an additional condition for the service benefit.

It directed the respondents to grant Grade Pay ₹5,400, or the corresponding Pay Level, from the date the applicant became eligible after completing four years of qualifying regular service in Grade Pay ₹4,800, with notional pay fixation from that date.

Actual arrears, refixation and other consequential benefits were limited to three years before the filing of the O.A.; the exercise was to be completed within 12 weeks of receipt of the order.