Entitlement to non-functional grade pay of Rs. 5400 is a judgment in rem for all eligible officers.

The applicant, an Inspector in the Central GST Audit Commissionerate, Dehradun, was appointed on 28.11.2011.

He was granted the first MACP benefit on 28.11.2021 with a Grade Pay (GP) of Rs. 4,800/-.

Upon completing four years of regular service in the said GP on 28.11.2025, he sought placement in the Non-Functional Grade (NFG) pay scale of Rs. 5,400/-.

The respondents rejected his representation via an impugned order dated 27.01.2026, asserting that the benefit of NFG was restricted only to the specific petitioners in previous court cases and that the applicant had not provided a specific judgment in his favor.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the Non-Functional Grade (NFG) pay scale of Rs. 5,400/- after completing four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- obtained through MACP.

2. Whether the benefits of judgments regarding pay fixation and uniform government policies should be applied in rem to all similarly situated employees rather than in personam.

The court relied on the precedent set by the Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam v. Union of India (W.P. No. 13225/2010), which held that officers completing four years in the relevant pay scale are entitled to NFG.

The principle that pay fixation matters governed by uniform government policies are judgments in rem, as established in Pradeep Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India (O.A. No. 1005/2019) and supported by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal found that the legal entitlement to NFG GP Rs. 5,400/- after four years of service in GP Rs. 4,800/- was no longer res integra (an unsettled question) due to the settled position in M. Subramaniam.

The court criticized the respondents for dismissing the applicant's representation on the grounds that he was not a party to the original litigation, labeling the decision "outrageous" and indicative of "non-application of mind".

It reasoned that since pay fixation is governed by uniform national policy, any judicial interpretation of such policy must be applied to all similarly situated employees to avoid "needless litigation".

The court noted that the respondents' attempt to treat the previous rulings as in personam (applicable only to the specific litigants) was legally flawed.

The respondents were directed to extend the benefits of the judgment in Pradeep Kumar and M. Subramaniam to the applicant and complete the exercise within four months of receiving the order.