### Entitlement to Pay Scale Benefits Under SRO 149 of 1973 for Similarly Circumstanced Employees

Seven applicants, employed within the Power Development Department of Jammu & Kashmir, filed a joint Original Application (O.A.) seeking the grant of pay scale benefits under SRO 149 of 1973.

The applicants contended that they are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 5000–8000 based on a series of judicial precedents, starting with a 2017 High Court judgment that was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in February 2026.

Procedurally, the applicants also moved M.A. No. 570/2026 to pursue the litigation collectively.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to join and pursue the Original Application collectively under Rule 4(5) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to extend the benefits of SRO 149 of 1973 and the pay scale of Rs. 5000–8000 to the applicants in light of settled judicial precedents.

The Tribunal applied Rule 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which permits multiple applicants to join a single application if they share a common cause of action.

Substantively, the claim is rooted in SRO 149 of 1973 dated 07-04-1973 regarding pay scales.

The primary legal precedent relied upon was the Hon'ble High Court of J&K’s judgment in Provisional Power Employee Union v. State of J&K (SWP No. 809/2001), upheld by the Supreme Court in State of J&K v. Provincial Power Employees Union and Ors (SLP Civil Appeal No. 7992/2022).

Additional reliance was placed on Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the applicants' pay scale claims. Instead, it focused on the principle of parity and administrative redressal.

Given that the applicants cited numerous judgments (e.g., O.A. No. 267/2026 and LPA No. 353/2024) where similarly situated employees were granted relief, the Tribunal determined that the most appropriate course was to direct the executive to evaluate the applicants' specific circumstances against those precedents.

The Tribunal linked the applicants' request to the existing legal framework by ordering the respondents to treat the O.A. as a formal representation, ensuring that if the applicants are indeed "similarly circumstanced" and face no "legal impediment," the benefits must be extended to maintain consistency in law.

The holding mandates the respondents to decide the claim via a "speaking and reasoned order" within six weeks, specifically considering the applicants' eligibility and the cited judgments of the High Court and Supreme Court.

Regarding the O.A., the Tribunal disposed of the matter without expressing an opinion on the merits, directing the respondents to treat the application as a representation.

No order as to costs was made.