Respondents directed to consider applicants' representations in light of Kerala High Court order.

The applicants, 16 individuals including Amalendu Adak, joined as Lower Division Clerks (LDC) between 1989 and 1999 and were promoted to Upper Division Clerk (UDC) before 2001

On March 30, 2001, the posts of LDC and UDC were merged with the post of Tax Assistant (TA)

The applicants contended that they were not granted the benefit of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme and later the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, specifically seeking prayer for re-fixation in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 after 12 years of service, ignoring their UDC promotion, and upward placement under MACP

They submitted individual representations to the respondents, but these representations had not been considered at the time of the tribunal's hearing

The applicants sought the benefit of a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in K.N. Purushothaman & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (WPC No. 9486 of 2009)

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicants' pending representations regarding the grant of benefits under the ACP/MACP Scheme, taking into account their promotion as UDC/TA, in light of the Kerala High Court's order dated March 19, 2014, in WP (C) No. 9486 of 2009

2. Whether, upon verification, if the applicants are found entitled to the requested benefits, these benefits should be extended to them within a stipulated period

The Tribunal referred to Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the applicants approached the Tribunal for relief

The core legal principle applied was the established precedent from the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala's Order dated March 19, 2014, in WP (C) No. 9486 of 2009 (K.N. Purushothaman & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.), which dealt with similar service benefits, and which the applicants sought to have extended to them

The applicants sought the refixation of their pay and the grant of benefits under the ACP/MACP Scheme, asserting that their promotions as UDC/TA should be ignored for these purposes, and highlighted that a similar issue had been settled by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala

During the hearing, the applicants' counsel proposed that an order directing the respondents to consider their pending representations, in light of the Kerala High Court's ruling, would suffice at this stage

The respondents' counsel had no objection to this prayer, contingent on individual verification of entitlement

The Tribunal, without delving into the merits, acknowledged that the applicants' request was a procedural one for their representations to be considered in light of the relevant High Court judgment

The decision, in the form of a reasoned, speaking order, must be communicated to the applicants within 120 days from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order

Furthermore, if, after individual verification, the applicants are found entitled to the benefits, they are to be extended to them

The Tribunal explicitly stated it had not gone into the merits of the case, keeping all points for consideration open

No costs were awarded