MES directed to decide Assistants’ pay-scale representation in light of relevant precedents within four weeks.

The 122 applicants, serving in the Military Engineer Services (MES) as Assistants (redesignated OA/AAO) or in related posts, sought pay-scale parity with similarly placed employees in other Ministry of Defence departments.

They requested revision to Grade Pay of ₹4,600, with consequential benefits, relying on Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions concerning Naval clerks and on an MES communication indicating that a higher pay level for MES AAO/Steno posts had been recommended.

Their representation remained pending.

During the proceedings, the applicants stated that they would be satisfied with a direction requiring the competent authority to decide their case in light of the cited decisions and communication.

The respondents’ counsel had no instructions despite earlier directions to obtain them.

1. Whether the Tribunal should direct the respondents to decide the applicants’ pending representation concerning pay-scale parity, having regard to the cited judgments and MES communication.

2. Whether the applicants were entitled in this proceeding to a determination of their substantive claim for pay-scale parity and consequential benefits.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides the basis for an aggrieved person to seek adjudication before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal invoked the principles of natural justice in directing consideration of the applicants’ representation.

It identified All India Naval Clerks Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court, 27 July 2022), All India Naval Clerks Association & Ors. v. Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief & Ors. (O.A. No. 314/2010, Ernakulam Bench, 21 October 2011), and T. R. Mohanakrishnan & Ors. v. Ministry of Defence & Ors. (O.A. No. 180/00108/2023, 5 March 2026) as authorities to be considered; the order does not set out their substantive holdings.

The Tribunal noted the applicants’ reliance on the cited decisions, the MES communication stating that the matter had been taken up with the Ministry of Defence, and the respondents’ failure to provide instructions despite prior directions.

In view of the applicants’ stated willingness to accept a decision on their representation, the Tribunal considered that natural justice would be served by requiring the competent authority to examine the matter against the cited authorities and communication.

It did not decide whether the applicants were substantively entitled to the claimed pay revision.

The O.A. was disposed of without adjudicating the underlying pay-parity entitlement, and there was no order as to costs.