Pay Fixation Parity Denied to "Fence Sitters" Despite Subsequent Judgment in Rem or Personam.

The eleven applicants, retired Accounts Officers and Accountants from the Cabinet Secretariat (R&AW), challenged the reduction of their Grade Pay.

Initially, an order dated 17.11.2008 granted them pay scales at par with Organized Accounts Services (Accounts Officer: PB-2, GP Rs. 5400; Accountant: PB-2, GP Rs. 4800).

This was withdrawn via an order dated 18.03.2011, which introduced a distinction between SAS-qualified and non-SAS personnel, reducing the applicants' Grade Pay.

Although a similar challenge succeeded in A.K. Raina v. Union of India (OA 2682/2012), the applicants did not file their own challenge until 2022, after the respondents rejected their representations via a speaking order dated 14.10.2021.

1. Whether the judgment in A.K. Raina v. Union of India acts as a judgment in rem (applicable to all similarly situated persons) or in personam (restricted to the parties therein).

2. Whether the impugned order dated 24.11.2017 is liable to be quashed as a mere replacement of the previously quashed 2011 order.

3. Whether the applicants are "fence-sitters" and if the Original Application is barred by limitation and the doctrine of laches.

Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which mandate strict adherence to limitation periods.

Tribunals must consider limitation even if not raised by respondents as affirmed in D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India.

The doctrine from State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava holding that employees who "slept over their rights" and only approached the court after seeing others succeed (fence-sitters) are not entitled to benefit from a judgment in personam.

The principle from State of M.P. v. Seema Sharma stating that pay fixation is a policy matter where courts should not interfere unless there is "inherent arbitrariness".

The Tribunal analyzed the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations and the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, noting that a distinction between organized and unorganized accounts cadres was a policy decision based on "intelligent criteria" (i.e., the requirement to pass the SAS exam).

It found that the A.K. Raina judgment was in personam because it failed to consider the statutory CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, which superseded the executive orders.

The Tribunal observed that the applicants were aware of the Grade Pay reduction since 2011 but failed to challenge it for 11 years.

By failing to be vigilant and only filing the OA after the A.K. Raina decision, the applicants fit the legal definition of "fence-sitters" who had acquiesced to the government's decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the OA, holding that those who "slumbered over their rights" while counterparts were litigating waived their right to the claimed remedy.

All pending MAs were disposed of.