NFU to Grade Pay ₹5,400 cannot be denied solely because ₹4,800 was obtained through ACP/MACP.

The applicants, serving and retired Group ‘B’ officers of the India Meteorological Department, including Meteorologists ‘A’ and ‘B’ and one Scientific Officer, had reached Grade Pay (GP) ₹4,800 through regular promotion and/or ACP/MACP financial upgradation.

They claimed Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to GP ₹5,400 after completing four years in GP ₹4,800 under the Ministry of Finance Resolution dated 29 August 2008.

Their claim was rejected by the respondents through the order/circular dated 15 December 2025, on the ground that GP ₹4,800 obtained through ACP/MACP did not amount to regular promotion and that promotion to Meteorologist ‘B’ was a prerequisite for NFU.

The applicants challenged the rejection and sought NFU with arrears and consequential benefits.

The respondents defended the decision by contending that ACP/MACP had already granted financial advancement and that NFU would amount to a double benefit; they also disputed the applicability of the 29 August 2008 Resolution to the organisation.

Whether Group ‘B’ officers who have obtained GP ₹4,800 through ACP/MACP are entitled to NFU to GP ₹5,400 after completing four years in GP ₹4,800 under the Ministry of Finance Resolution dated 29 August 2008.

Whether the respondents could restrict NFU eligibility only to officers who obtained GP ₹4,800 through regular promotion and deny it to officers who obtained the grade pay through ACP/MACP.

Whether the rejection order/circular dated 15 December 2025 was legally sustainable in light of the precedents governing NFU and financial upgradation.

The Tribunal applied Clause X(e) of the Ministry of Finance Resolution dated 29 August 2008, under which Group ‘B’ officers of Departments of Posts, Revenue and similarly placed departments are to be granted GP ₹5,400 in PB-2 on a non-functional basis after four years of regular service in GP ₹4,800 in PB-2.

The Tribunal held that the Resolution contains no exclusion against officers who obtained GP ₹4,800 through ACP/MACP and therefore the administration cannot impose an additional requirement that GP ₹4,800 must have been obtained only through regular promotion.

It relied on M. Subramaniam v. Union of India , whose decision had attained finality after dismissal of the challenge and review petition; Sushil Kumar v. Union of India , 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6482; Ghanshyam Vashisht & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , OA No. 2436/2022, as upheld in W.P. (C) No. 10081/2025; and other decisions recognising that financial upgradation and regular promotion are distinct concepts.

The governing principle was that NFU depends on the officer’s completion of the prescribed period in the relevant grade pay, unless the governing Resolution expressly excludes ACP/MACP beneficiaries.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents’ distinction between GP ₹4,800 obtained through promotion and GP ₹4,800 obtained through ACP/MACP.

It found that the 29 August 2008 Resolution prescribes four years of regular service in GP ₹4,800 but does not stipulate that the grade pay must have been secured exclusively through regular promotion.

Consequently, the respondents’ requirement that promotion to Meteorologist ‘B’ was a mandatory precondition for NFU was an impermissible restriction not found in the Resolution.

The argument that NFU would confer a double benefit was also untenable because ACP/MACP financial upgradation and NFU operate in different fields and cannot be treated as equivalent to regular promotion.

Following the settled principles in M. Subramaniam , Sushil Kumar and Ghanshyam Vashisht , the Tribunal held that denial of NFU solely because the applicants had reached GP ₹4,800 through ACP/MACP was arbitrary and unsustainable.

The order/circular dated 15 December 2025 was quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to grant the applicants NFU and consequential benefits, including admissible arrears, in accordance with law, within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.