Mandate to decide claims for Non-Functional Upgradation to Grade Pay 5400 via speaking order.

The applicants are retired Superintendents of CGST and Customs who served under the Guwahati Commissionerate and Dhubri Customs Division

They seek the grant of Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) in the Grade Pay (GP) of Rs. 5400/- (Pay Band-2) effective from the date of completion of four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/-

The applicants contend that they are entitled to this benefit under the Pay Rules, 2008, and established judicial precedents

They submitted various representations (Annexure A-14) to the respondents regarding this claim, which remain pending

Consequently, they approached the Tribunal for a direction to the respondents to decide these representations in light of existing law

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and dispose of the applicants' pending representations for the grant of Non-Functional Upgradation in the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in light of established precedents

Pay Rules, 2008

Judicial principle established by 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

CBIT & Customs Circular dated 27.04.2022, which implemented the aforementioned judgment for similarly situated incumbents who had approached various benches of the Tribunal

The Tribunal observed that the applicants’ grievance centered on the non-disposal of their representations concerning the NFU

During the proceedings, the applicants’ counsel limited the prayer to a request for a time-bound direction to the respondents to consider the pending representations (Annexure A-14) in the light of the M. Subramaniam judgment

The respondents’ counsel expressed no objection to such a direction

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that it was unnecessary to enter into the merits of the case at this stage and that the interests of justice would be served by directing the competent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order

Without adjudicating on the merits, the O.A. was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the applicants' representations (Annexure A-14 colly), treating the O.A. as part of the representation

The respondents are ordered to communicate their decision via a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of the order

No costs were awarded