Respondents must decide the applicant’s pay-scale grievance through a speaking order within four weeks.

The applicant, an employee of the Cooperative Societies Department, claimed that he had been wrongly placed in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 410–780 instead of Rs. 900–1830 with effect from 11 September 1989.

He asserted that similarly situated employees had been granted the higher scale pursuant to the judgment dated 23 March 1999 and order dated 16 November 2016 in Bashir Ahmad, and that the same benefit should be extended to him on the principle of equal treatment.

The proceedings were initially instituted before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in 2019.

On 29 March 2019, the High Court directed the respondents, during the notice period, to determine the applicant’s eligibility and consider his case accordingly.

The matter was subsequently transferred to the Jammu Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal on 5 August 2020.

Despite service of notice, the respondents did not file a reply, and the matter remained pending for approximately four years.

Whether the respondents were required to consider the applicant’s claim for placement in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 900–1830 in light of the High Court’s order dated 29 March 2019 and the treatment accorded to similarly situated employees?

Whether the applicant was entitled to immediate grant of the claimed pay scale and arrears, or whether the respondents should first determine his eligibility by a reasoned order?

The Tribunal applied the principle that similarly situated employees should receive equal treatment and that administrative authorities must comply with judicial directions by objectively determining eligibility and passing a reasoned or speaking order.

It relied upon the High Court’s order dated 29 March 2019, which required the respondents to determine the applicant’s eligibility and consider his case accordingly.

The applicant’s claim was also assertedly founded on the judgment dated 23 March 1999 and order dated 16 November 2016 in Bashir Ahmad, under which similarly situated employees were allegedly granted the higher pay scale.

The Tribunal did not finally determine the applicant’s entitlement to the scale or arrears.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s grievance was limited and administrative in nature: he claimed parity with employees who had allegedly been granted the Rs. 900–1830 scale.

Since the High Court had already directed the respondents to determine eligibility and consider the claim, the appropriate course was to require compliance with that direction rather than adjudicate the entitlement finally in the absence of a reply from the respondents.

The respondents’ failure to file their response did not justify direct grant of the monetary relief sought; instead, the Tribunal directed them to examine the claim, including the applicant’s asserted similarity with employees covered by Bashir Ahmad, and to communicate their decision through a speaking order.

It directed the respondents to decide the applicant’s grievance in accordance with the High Court’s order dated 29 March 2019 by passing a speaking order within four weeks and communicating the decision to the applicant.

The T.A., along with any connected miscellaneous applications, was accordingly disposed of.