Non-functional Grade Pay of ₹5400 is a right in rem, applicable four years after receiving ₹4800 Grade Pay.

The applicants, Group-B officers in the respondent departments, were granted a second financial upgradation in the Grade Pay (GP) of Rs. 4,800/-.

Under a Government Resolution dated 29.08.2008, Group-B officers were entitled to a non-functional GP of Rs. 5,400/- after completing four years of regular service in the GP of Rs. 4,800/-.

The respondents denied this benefit, relying on a 2009 clarification stating that the four-year period should be counted only after "regular promotion" and not from the date of financial upgradation under ACP/MACP schemes.

The applicants approached the Tribunal seeking parity with the judgment in M. Subramaniam v. U.O.I, which had already addressed this discrepancy.

1. Whether the four-year period required for the grant of non-functional Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- should be counted from the date the officer reached the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- through financial upgradation (ACP/MACP) rather than regular promotion.

2. Whether the judgment in M. Subramaniam v. U.O.I, affirmed by the Supreme Court, constitutes a judgment in rem (applicable to all similarly situated persons) or in personam (restricted to the parties in that case).

Government of India Resolution dated 29.08.2008 regarding the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations.

Precedent of M. Subramaniam v. U.O.I (Madras High Court, W.P. No. 13225/2010), which established that the four-year period is counted from the date an officer is placed in the pay scale of Rs. 7,500-12,000 (pre-revised) regardless of whether it was via promotion or ACP.

Principle from State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha (2006), which postulates that all persons similarly situated must be treated similarly in service jurisprudence to avoid discriminatory treatment under Article 14.

The Tribunal reasoned that the legal controversy had been definitively settled by the Madras High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court when it dismissed the Revenue Department's Special Leave Petition.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the prior judgments were in personam, holding instead that once a principle of law is settled regarding pay scales, it must be applied in rem to all similarly situated employees to prevent a multiplicity of litigation.

The Bench observed that the Department's refusal to extend these benefits voluntarily violated the National Litigation Policy and the Supreme Court’s directions in Government of NCT v. Somvir Rana, which mandates the issuance of circulars once a principle is settled to save judicial time.

Consequently, since the applicants had completed four years in the GP of Rs. 4,800/-, their entitlement to GP Rs. 5,400/- was absolute.

The Tribunal held that the applicants are entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- on a non-functional basis from the date they completed four years of regular service in the GP of Rs. 4,800/- (inclusive of service following ACP/MACP upgradation).

The respondents were directed to grant all consequential benefits, including arrears and revised PPOs for retired applicants, within 90 days.