Facts
The applicants are Inspectors in CGST & Central Excise under the Meerut Zone
Source reference: p. 1-2They approached the Tribunal seeking the grant of Non-Functional Grade (NFG) in Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- upon completion of four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/-
Source reference: p. 2, para 3The applicants contended that they had completed the requisite qualifying service and submitted representations dated 22.01.2026 and 01.07.2025 to the competent authority, which remained unconsidered while similarly situated employees were granted the benefit
Source reference: p. 2, para 3; p. 4, para 9Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to be placed in the Non-Functional Grade (NFG) of Rs. 5,400/- in PB-2 effective from the date they completed four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/-
Source reference: p. 2, para 2; p. 3, para 6Law Applied
The court primarily relied on the Government of India Resolution dated 29.08.2008, which provides for non-functional upgradation to Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- in PB-2 after four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/-
Source reference: p. 2, para 4It further applied the precedent set by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in M. Subramanian vs. Union of India, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after the dismissal of the respondents' Special Leave Petition
Source reference: p. 3, para 4-5Additionally, the Tribunal cited its own prior decision in O.A. No. 300 of 2025 (decided on 03.09.2025), which granted similar relief
Source reference: p. 3, para 7Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the legal issue regarding the entitlement to NFG is no longer res integra and stands settled by the judgment in M. Subramanian vs. Union of India and subsequent affirmations
Source reference: p. 3, para 5, 7The court observed that the respondents’ counsel conceded that the matter was settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court
Source reference: p. 3, para 5By applying these precedents to the present facts, the Tribunal found the case to be "squarely covered" by the earlier judicial pronouncements
Source reference: p. 4, para 8The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicants claimed parity with similarly situated employees who had already received the benefit, the respondents were obligated to evaluate the applicants' representations in light of the established law to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory treatment
Source reference: p. 3, para 4; p. 4, para 9Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application at the admission stage without costs
It directed the respondents to take a formal decision on the applicants' representations dated 22.01.2026 and 01.07.2025 within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order
Source reference: p. 4, para 9The holding mandates that if the applicants are found to be similarly situated to the employees in the cited precedents, the benefit of NFG (Rs. 5,400/- in PB-2) and all consequential benefits must be extended to them in accordance with the law
Source reference: p. 4, para 9Original Court PDF
Akhilesh KumarvsCGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in