Facts
The seven applicants are current or retired Superintendents serving under the Customs and Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) departments in the Guwahati Zone
Source reference: p. 1-2The applicants seek the benefit of the Non-Functional Grade (NFG) pay scale of PB-2 (Rs. 9300-34800) with a Grade Pay of Rs. 5400, effective from the date they completed four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800
Source reference: p. 3-4While the applicants submitted several representations to the respondent authorities (Annexure A-16 colly), these remained unaddressed
Source reference: p. 5The applicants approached the Tribunal praying for the grant of NFG and consequential benefits, including pay re-fixation and arrears, citing settled legal precedents
Source reference: p. 4-5Issues
Whether the applicants are entitled to the Non-Functional Grade (NFG) Pay Scale of Rs. 5400 upon completion of four years of service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800
Source reference: p. 4Whether the respondent authorities are required to decide the applicants' pending representations in light of established judicial precedents and departmental circulars
Source reference: p. 5-6Law Applied
The Tribunal primarily relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam v. Union of India & Others (W.P. No. 13225/2010), which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8883/2011
Source reference: p. 4-5This precedent established the right of similarly situated officers to receive NFG benefits.
Source reference: p. 4-5The Tribunal also referenced the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) Circular dated 27.04.2022 and various consistent orders from coordinate benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal, including the Ernakulam, Chandigarh, Mumbai, and Guwahati Benches
Source reference: p. 6Reasoning
The applicants argued that they are similarly situated to the petitioners in the M. Subramaniam case and subsequent successful litigations across various CAT benches
Source reference: p. 4-6They requested that the Tribunal direct the respondents to consider their pending representations in the context of these judicial pronouncements and the CBIC’s own 2022 circular
Source reference: p. 6The respondents, through the Additional CGSC, raised no objection to the administrative consideration of the representations
Source reference: p. 6The Tribunal, observing that the representations were still pending, determined that the interests of justice would be served by requiring the respondents to evaluate the applicants' eligibility based on the cited law and departmental guidelines
Source reference: p. 6-7Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider the applicants' representations (Annexure A-16 colly), treating the O.A. as a supplementary part of said representations
The respondents are ordered to communicate their decision through a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the Tribunal's order
Source reference: p. 7The holding further specifies that if the applicants are found to be similarly situated to the beneficiaries in the cited precedents, the respondents must extend the relevant benefits, including pay re-fixation and arrears, within the same three-month period
Source reference: p. 7No costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
Vileto AngamivsREVENUE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in