Employees completing four years in Grade Pay 4,800 are entitled to Non-Functional Grade Pay 5,400.

The ten applicants, including two widows of deceased employees, sought Non-Functional Grade (NFG) Grade Pay of ₹5,400 in Pay Band-II after completing four years of regular service in Grade Pay of ₹4,800.

They had retired before receiving that benefit and sought consequential arrears and revision of pension or family pension.

After making representations in January and August–September 2026, they filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The respondents did not dispute that the issue had previously been decided by the Tribunal and the Madras High Court, with the High Court’s decision affirmed by the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to the NFG Grade Pay of ₹5,400 upon completing four years of regular service in Grade Pay of ₹4,800, notwithstanding their retirement.

2. Whether the benefit of the earlier decisions on this pay-fixation issue should be extended to the applicants, with consequential arrears and revision of pension or family pension.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for an application to the Tribunal.

The Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) resolution dated 29 August 2008 provides for Grade Pay of ₹5,400 in PB-II on a non-functional basis after four years of regular service in Grade Pay of ₹4,800 for the covered employees.

In M. Subramaniam v. Union of India, the Madras High Court directed grant of the benefit from the date the employee completed the qualifying service; that decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal also relied on its decision in Pradeep Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 1005/2019, and reiterated that judgments concerning uniform government pay policies should be applied in rem to similarly situated employees, rather than confined to the original litigants.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had completed four years of regular service in Grade Pay of ₹4,800 before retirement and that their claims therefore fell within the rule established by the 2008 resolution and M. Subramaniam.

The respondents did not dispute the prior decisions on the issue.

Given the uniform nature of the applicable pay policy and earlier Tribunal directions to extend the benefit in rem, the Tribunal held that the applicants should receive the same treatment as similarly situated employees, including those covered by the earlier decisions.

As the applicants had retired, the respondents were directed to pay the resulting arrears and revise their pension or family pension within four months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No costs were awarded.